Sixth Amendment confrontation clause in Washington

2014Jasper, and Haves—requires that a defendant raise a Sixth Amendment confrontation clause claim at or before trial or lose the benefit 11 Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 42 , 124 S. Ct. 1354 , 158 L Ed. 2d 177 (2004). 12 id at 51. 13 Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts. 557 U.S. 305, 324 , 129 S. Ct. 2527 , 174 L.

2014Jasper, and Haves—requires that a defendant raise a Sixth Amendment confrontation clause claim at or before trial or lose the benefit 11 Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 42 , 124 S. Ct. 1354 , 158 L Ed. 2d 177 (2004). 12 id at 51. 13 Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts. 557 U.S. 305, 324 , 129 S. Ct. 2527 , 174 L.

2014Jasper, and Haves—requires that a defendant raise a Sixth Amendment confrontation clause claim at or before trial or lose the benefit 11 Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 42 , 124 S. Ct. 1354 , 158 L Ed. 2d 177 (2004). 12 id at 51. 13 Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts. 557 U.S. 305, 324 , 129 S. Ct. 2527 , 174 L.

2014Jasper, and Haves—requires that a defendant raise a Sixth Amendment confrontation clause claim at or before trial or lose the benefit 11 Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 42 , 124 S. Ct. 1354 , 158 L Ed. 2d 177 (2004). 12 id at 51. 13 Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts. 557 U.S. 305, 324 , 129 S. Ct. 2527 , 174 L.

2010See ER 103(a); State v. Guloy, 104 Wash.2d 412, 422 , 705 P.2d 1182 (1985) ("A party may only assign error in the appellate court on the specific ground of the evidentiary objection made at trial."), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1020 , 106 S.Ct. 1208 , 89 L.Ed.2d 321 (1986). ¶ 23 The Sixth Amendment confrontation clause provides, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him." U.S. Const. amend.

2010See ER 103(a); State v. Guloy, 104 Wn.2d 412, 422 , 705 P.2d 1182 (1985) (“A party may only assign error in the appellate court on the specific ground of the evidentiary objection made at trial.”), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1020 (1986). ¶23 The Sixth Amendment confrontation clause provides, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” U.S. Const, amend.

2010State v. Hopkins, 134 Wash.App. 780, 790 , 142 P.3d 1104 (2006) (citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 50-51 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004)), review denied, 160 Wash.2d 1020 , 163 P.3d 793 (2007).

2010State v. Hopkins, 134 Wn.

2002State v. Strauss, 119 Wn.2d 401, 418-19 , 832 P.2d 78 (1992).

2002State v. Strauss, 119 Wn.2d 401, 418-19 , 832 P.2d 78 (1992).

1992Fatico, 579 F.2d at 713-14 .

1992Similarly, in United States v. Fatico, 579 F.2d 707 (2d Cir.1978), aff'd, 603 F.2d 1053 (1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1073 , 62 L.Ed.2d 755 , 100 S.Ct. 1018 (1980), a case involving hearsay statements by an anonymous witness in the federal witness protection program, the court held that neither due process nor the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause is violated when a sentencing court relies upon hearsay evidence (1) if the defendant does not dispute the truth of the statement sought to be introduced; or (2) where the defendant does dispute the truth of the statement, if the government produ

1992Ed. 2d 755 , 100 S. Ct. 1018 (1980), a case involving hearsay statements by an anonymous witness in the federal witness protection program, the court held that neither due process nor the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause is violated when a sentencing court relies upon hearsay evidence (1) if the defendant does not dispute the truth of the statement sought to be introduced; or (2) where the defendant does dispute the truth of the statement, if the government produces additional evidence from which the court can determine the reliability of the hearsay statement.

1992Similarly, in United States v. Fatico, 579 F.2d 707 (2d Cir.1978), aff'd, 603 F.2d 1053 (1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1073 , 62 L.Ed.2d 755 , 100 S.Ct. 1018 (1980), a case involving hearsay statements by an anonymous witness in the federal witness protection program, the court held that neither due process nor the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause is violated when a sentencing court relies upon hearsay evidence (1) if the defendant does not dispute the truth of the statement sought to be introduced; or (2) where the defendant does dispute the truth of the statement, if the government produ

2019VI. “[T]he ‘principal evil’ at which the clause was directed was the civil-law system’s use of ex parte examinations and ex parte affidavits as substitutes for live witnesses in criminal cases.” State v. Lui, 153 Wn.

2014Ed. 2d 314 (2009). 14 State v. Zeigler. 114 Wn.2d 533, 538 , 789 P.2d 79 (1990).

2014Ed. 2d 314 (2009). 14 State v. Zeigler. 114 Wn.2d 533, 538 , 789 P.2d 79 (1990).

2014VI. 77 State v. Doerflinger. 170 Wn.

2014App. 339, 345 , 835 P.2d 251 (1992). 26 No. 69005-1-1/27 the reviewing court "make[s] a cursory determination as to whether the alleged error in fact suggests a constitutional issue."71 Second, the court must determine whether the alleged error is manifest.72 "Essential to this determination is a plausible showing by the defendant that the asserted error had practical and identifiable consequences in the trial of the case."73 Third, if the error is manifest, the court "must address the merits of the constitutional issue."74 Fourth, "if the court determines that an error of constitutional impor

2012The Court noted that the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause is “ ‘most naturally read as a reference to the right of confrontation at common law.’ ” Giles, 554 U.S. at 358 (quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 54).

2010State v. Hopkins, 134 Wash.App. 780, 790 , 142 P.3d 1104 (2006) (citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 50-51 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004)), review denied, 160 Wash.2d 1020 , 163 P.3d 793 (2007).

2010See ER 103(a); State v. Guloy, 104 Wash.2d 412, 422 , 705 P.2d 1182 (1985) ("A party may only assign error in the appellate court on the specific ground of the evidentiary objection made at trial."), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1020 , 106 S.Ct. 1208 , 89 L.Ed.2d 321 (1986). ¶ 23 The Sixth Amendment confrontation clause provides, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him." U.S. Const. amend.

2010See ER 103(a); State v. Guloy, 104 Wash.2d 412, 422 , 705 P.2d 1182 (1985) ("A party may only assign error in the appellate court on the specific ground of the evidentiary objection made at trial."), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1020 , 106 S.Ct. 1208 , 89 L.Ed.2d 321 (1986). ¶ 23 The Sixth Amendment confrontation clause provides, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him." U.S. Const. amend.

2010State v. Hopkins, 134 Wash.App. 780, 790 , 142 P.3d 1104 (2006) (citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 50-51 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004)), review denied, 160 Wash.2d 1020 , 163 P.3d 793 (2007).

2010State v. Hopkins, 134 Wash.App. 780, 790 , 142 P.3d 1104 (2006) (citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 50-51 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004)), review denied, 160 Wash.2d 1020 , 163 P.3d 793 (2007).

1992Similarly, in United States v. Fatico, 579 F.2d 707 (2d Cir.1978), aff'd, 603 F.2d 1053 (1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1073 , 62 L.Ed.2d 755 , 100 S.Ct. 1018 (1980), a case involving hearsay statements by an anonymous witness in the federal witness protection program, the court held that neither due process nor the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause is violated when a sentencing court relies upon hearsay evidence (1) if the defendant does not dispute the truth of the statement sought to be introduced; or (2) where the defendant does dispute the truth of the statement, if the government produ

1992Similarly, in United States v. Fatico, 579 F.2d 707 (2d Cir.1978), aff'd, 603 F.2d 1053 (1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1073 , 62 L.Ed.2d 755 , 100 S.Ct. 1018 (1980), a case involving hearsay statements by an anonymous witness in the federal witness protection program, the court held that neither due process nor the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause is violated when a sentencing court relies upon hearsay evidence (1) if the defendant does not dispute the truth of the statement sought to be introduced; or (2) where the defendant does dispute the truth of the statement, if the government produ

1992Similarly, in United States v. Fatico, 579 F.2d 707 (2d Cir.1978), aff'd, 603 F.2d 1053 (1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1073 , 62 L.Ed.2d 755 , 100 S.Ct. 1018 (1980), a case involving hearsay statements by an anonymous witness in the federal witness protection program, the court held that neither due process nor the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause is violated when a sentencing court relies upon hearsay evidence (1) if the defendant does not dispute the truth of the statement sought to be introduced; or (2) where the defendant does dispute the truth of the statement, if the government produ

1987See Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 (1980); Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 (1968) (witness' imprisonment in federal prison does not constitute unavailability when state made no effort to secure cooperation of federal officials); see generally 5A K.

1987See Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 (1980); Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 (1968) (witness' imprisonment in federal prison does not constitute unavailability when state made no effort to secure cooperation of federal officials); see generally 5A K.

1987In State v. Ryan, 103 Wn.2d 165 , 691 P.2d 197 (1984), the court found that RCW 9A.44.120 does not violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause because the requirements for admission under the statute are consistent with the general approach used to test hearsay against confrontation rights, as set forth in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 65 L.

1987In State v. Ryan, 103 Wn.2d 165 , 691 P.2d 197 (1984), the court found that RCW 9A.44.120 does not violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause because the requirements for admission under the statute are consistent with the general approach used to test hearsay against confrontation rights, as set forth in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 65 L.