18 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. McKeevegreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., United States v McKeeve, 131 F3d 1, 9 (CA 1, 1997), People v Wilson, 17 Cal App 4th 271, 278; 21 Cal Rptr 2d 420 (1993), and State v Tucker, 109 Ore App 519, 526; 820 P2d 834 11 Defense counsel’s affirmation was awkwardly phrased as a “don’t disagree” with the prosecutor’s position. -19- (1991). 2003See, e.g., United States v McKeeve, 131 F3d 1, 9 (CA 1, 1997), People v Wilson, 17 Cal App 4th 271, 278; 21 Cal Rptr 2d 420 (1993), and State v Tucker, 109 Or App 519, 526 ; 820 P2d 834 (1991). 2 However, we need not decide that issue because Mathis had been charged with the crimes and was considered unavailable because it was expected that he would assert his Fifth Amendment right not to testify. | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Becky Lynn Barrettgreen2 sentences2000This Court noted that MRE 803(24) had not been interpreted in Michigan and that it needed to look at analogous cases discussing the federal catchall exceptions, FRE 803(24) and 804(b)(5): In United States v Barrett, 8 F3d 1296, 1300 (CA 8, 1993), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals considered the issue whether hearsay evidence of a child’s statements concerning her mother’s abuse were sufficiently trustworthy to be admissible under FRE 803(24): “In order to comply with the Sixth Amendment, hearsay statements offered into evidence must bear ‘adequate “indicia of reliability.” ” ’ This reliabili 1998See FRE 803(24); FRE 804(b)(5). *467 In United States v Barrett, 8 F3d 1296, 1300 (CA 8, 1993), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals considered the issue whether hearsay evidence of a child’s statements concerning her mother’s abuse were sufficiently trustworthy to be admissible under FRE 803(24): In order to comply with the Sixth Amendment, hearsay statements offered into evidence must bear “adequate ‘indi-cia of reliability.’ ” This reliability requirement is fulfilled when the hearsay statement either “ ‘falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception’ ” or occurs under circumstances with “ ‘ | 2 | 2 |
Ohio v. Robertsred2 sentences2008The Court further held that "[r]eliability can be inferred without more in a case where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception." Id. at 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 . 2008The Court further held that "[r]eliability can be inferred without more in a case where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception." Id. at 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 . | 1 | 7 |
State v. Tuckergreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., United States v McKeeve, 131 F3d 1, 9 (CA 1, 1997), People v Wilson, 17 Cal App 4th 271, 278; 21 Cal Rptr 2d 420 (1993), and State v Tucker, 109 Ore App 519, 526; 820 P2d 834 11 Defense counsel’s affirmation was awkwardly phrased as a “don’t disagree” with the prosecutor’s position. -19- (1991). 2003See, e.g., United States v McKeeve, 131 F3d 1, 9 (CA 1, 1997), People v Wilson, 17 Cal App 4th 271, 278; 21 Cal Rptr 2d 420 (1993), and State v Tucker, 109 Or App 519, 526 ; 820 P2d 834 (1991). 2 However, we need not decide that issue because Mathis had been charged with the crimes and was considered unavailable because it was expected that he would assert his Fifth Amendment right not to testify. | 1 | 2 |
Idaho v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2000In other cases, the evidence must be excluded, at least absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” [Wright, supra, p 814 (citations omitted).] In Wright , the trial court allowed a medical doctor to testily about statements made by a 2y2-year-old child regarding sexual abuse. 1998Idaho v Wright, 497 US 805, 817 ; 110 S Ct 3139 ; 111 L Ed 2d 638 (1990). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2003See, e.g., United States v. McKeeve, 131 F.3d 1, 9 (C.A.1, 1997), People v. Wilson, 17 Cal.App.4th 271, 278 , 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 420 (1993), and State v. Tucker, 109 Or.App. 519, 526 , 820 P.2d 834 (1991). [2] However, we need not decide that issue because Mathis had been charged with the crimes and was considered unavailable because it was expected that he would assert his Fifth Amendment right not to testify. 2003See, e.g., United States v. McKeeve, 131 F.3d 1, 9 (C.A.1, 1997), People v. Wilson, 17 Cal.App.4th 271, 278 , 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 420 (1993), and State v. Tucker, 109 Or.App. 519, 526 , 820 P.2d 834 (1991). [2] However, we need not decide that issue because Mathis had been charged with the crimes and was considered unavailable because it was expected that he would assert his Fifth Amendment right not to testify. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Poole
green
2 sentences2002“Admission of a hearsay statement by an unavailable declarant will not violate a defendant’s right to confront his accusers if the statement falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception or if it bears adequate indicia of reliability.” People v Schutte, 240 Mich App 713, 717-718 ; 613 NW2d 370 (2000), citing People v Poole, 444 Mich 151, 162-163 ; 506 NW2d 505 (1993); see Ohio v Roberts, 448 US 56, 66 ; 100 S Ct 2531 ; 65 L Ed 2d 597 (1980). 2002“Admission of a hearsay statement by an unavailable declarant will not violate a defendant’s right to confront his accusers if the statement falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception or if it bears adequate indicia of reliability.” People v Schutte, 240 Mich App 713, 717-718 ; 613 NW2d 370 (2000), citing People v Poole, 444 Mich 151, 162-163 ; 506 NW2d 505 (1993); see Ohio v Roberts, 448 US 56, 66 ; 100 S Ct 2531 ; 65 L Ed 2d 597 (1980). | 6 | 1994–2026 |
People v. Meredith
green
2 sentences2014Meredith, 459 Mich at 67-70 ; Adams 233 Mich App at 659-660 . 1999Meredith, supra at 67-71 . | 2 | 1999–2014 |
Lee v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1993While the four dissenting justices in Lee v Illinois, 476 US 530 ; 106 S Ct 2056 ; 90 L Ed 2d 514 (1986), would have ruled that this exception is firmly rooted, the majority declined to adopt that analysis. 1993While the four dissenting justices in Lee v Illinois, 476 US 530 ; 106 S Ct 2056 ; 90 L Ed 2d 514 (1986), would have ruled that this exception is firmly rooted, the majority declined to adopt that analysis. | 2 | 1989–1993 |
People v. Adams
green
1 sentence2014Meredith, 459 Mich at 67-70 ; Adams 233 Mich App at 659-660 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Ortiz
green
1 sentence2003In the present case, MRE 803(3) is a “firmly rooted” hearsay exception; therefore, statements that satisfy the rule carry sufficient indicia of reliability to satisfy the Confrontation Clause “without more.” Id.; Ortiz, supra at 310-311 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Schutte
green
2 sentences2002Because counsel on behalf of codefendant appeared and indicated that he would assert his cli ent’s Fifth Amendment privilege if codefendant were called upon to testify, defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation was implicated and the otherwise hearsay statement could not come in as substantive evidence unless the statement “falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception or if it bears adequate indi-cia of reliability.” Schutte, supra at 717-718 . 2002“Admission of a hearsay statement by an unavailable declarant will not violate a defendant’s right to confront his accusers if the statement falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception or if it bears adequate indicia of reliability.” People v Schutte, 240 Mich App 713, 717-718 ; 613 NW2d 370 (2000), citing People v Poole, 444 Mich 151, 162-163 ; 506 NW2d 505 (1993); see Ohio v Roberts, 448 US 56, 66 ; 100 S Ct 2531 ; 65 L Ed 2d 597 (1980). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Welch
green
2 sentences2000This reliability requirement is fulfilled when the hearsay statement either “ ‘ “falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception” ’ ” or occurs under circumstances with “ ‘ “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” ’ ” People v Welch, 226 Mich App 461, 467 ; 574 NW2d 682 (1997) (citations omitted). 2000This reliability requirement is fulfilled when the hearsay statement either “ ‘ “falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception” ’ ” or occurs under circumstances with “ ‘ “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” ’ ” People v Welch, 226 Mich App 461, 467 ; 574 NW2d 682 (1997) (citations omitted). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Dye
green
2 sentences1998Even then, his statement is admissible only if it bears adequate ‘indicia of reliability.’ Reliability can be inferred without more in a case where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.” In the specific context of MRE 804(b)(1), we earlier held in People v Dye, 431 Mich 58, 93 ; 427 NW2d 501 (1988), that the preliminary examination testimony of an unavailable witness may be used at trial upon a showing that the testimony bears satisfactory indicia of reliability. 11 The reliability requirement was also noted in People v Bean, 457 Mich 677, 682-683 ; 580 NW2d 390 (1998). 1998Even then, his statement is admissible only if it bears adequate ‘indicia of reliability.’ Reliability can be inferred without more in a case where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.” In the specific context of MRE 804(b)(1), we earlier held in People v Dye, 431 Mich 58, 93 ; 427 NW2d 501 (1988), that the preliminary examination testimony of an unavailable witness may be used at trial upon a showing that the testimony bears satisfactory indicia of reliability. 11 The reliability requirement was also noted in People v Bean, 457 Mich 677, 682-683 ; 580 NW2d 390 (1998). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Bean
green
2 sentences1998Even then, his statement is admissible only if it bears adequate ‘indicia of reliability.’ Reliability can be inferred without more in a case where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.” In the specific context of MRE 804(b)(1), we earlier held in People v Dye, 431 Mich 58, 93 ; 427 NW2d 501 (1988), that the preliminary examination testimony of an unavailable witness may be used at trial upon a showing that the testimony bears satisfactory indicia of reliability. 11 The reliability requirement was also noted in People v Bean, 457 Mich 677, 682-683 ; 580 NW2d 390 (1998). 1998Even then, his statement is admissible only if it bears adequate ‘indicia of reliability.’ Reliability can be inferred without more in a case where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.” In the specific context of MRE 804(b)(1), we earlier held in People v Dye, 431 Mich 58, 93 ; 427 NW2d 501 (1988), that the preliminary examination testimony of an unavailable witness may be used at trial upon a showing that the testimony bears satisfactory indicia of reliability. 11 The reliability requirement was also noted in People v Bean, 457 Mich 677, 682-683 ; 580 NW2d 390 (1998). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
White v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1993In other cases, the evidence must be excluded, at least absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. [Id. at 66.] "[A] statement that qualifies for admission under a 'firmly rooted’ hearsay exception is so trustworthy that adversarial testing can be expected to add little to its reliability.” White v Illinois, 502 US —; 112 S Ct 736, 743 ; 116 L Ed 2d 848 (1992). 1993In other cases, the evidence must be excluded, at least absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. [Id. at 66.] "[A] statement that qualifies for admission under a 'firmly rooted’ hearsay exception is so trustworthy that adversarial testing can be expected to add little to its reliability.” White v Illinois, 502 US —; 112 S Ct 736, 743 ; 116 L Ed 2d 848 (1992). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Dutton v. Evans
green
2 sentences1991Because the hearsay rules and the Confrontation Clause are designed to protect similar values and stem from the same roots, Dutton v Evans, 400 US 74, 86 ; 91 S Ct 210 ; 27 L Ed 2d 213 (1970) (plurality), the Court recognized that reliability will be presumed where the "evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.” Roberts, supra at 66 . 1991Because the hearsay rules and the Confrontation Clause are designed to protect similar values and stem from the same roots, Dutton v Evans, 400 US 74, 86 ; 91 S Ct 210 ; 27 L Ed 2d 213 (1970) (plurality), the Court recognized that reliability will be presumed where the "evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.” Roberts, supra at 66 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.