Sixth Amendment confrontation clause in Texas

16 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2025 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Texas 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.

Followed or applied (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
Crawford v. Washingtongreen scotus · 2004 · cited in 6 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2025 2 sentences 2025Garcia explained that after he writes a report, another analyst, Hauser in this case, “look[s] at [his] report” to ensure that “the information on the submission form was inputted into” the “management system information . . . correctly, that [his] worksheet doesn’t have any typos, that the math [he] did to get the net weight was consistent,” and that his data and conclusion is correct” The State offered Garcia’s report, and appellant objected on the basis that “[a] forensic analysis laboratory report prepared for use in a criminal prosecution is testimonial evidence subject to the demands of 2020See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (holding that the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause bars the admission of testimonial statements of a witness who does not appear at trial unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness).	1	6
Colone v. Stategreen ca5 · 2019 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022See Colone v. State, 573 S.W.3d 249, 264 (Tex.Crim.App. 2019).	1	1
in the Interest of S.A.G., a Childgreen texapp · 2013 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014See In re S.A.G., 403 S.W.3d 907, 912 (Tex. App.— Texarkana 2013, pet. denied).	1	1
Rubio v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 2007 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013Rubio v. State, 241 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007).	1	1
White v. Illinoisgreen scotus · 1992 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 1 sentence 2000See White v. Illinois , 502 U.S. 346, 354 (1992); United States v. Inadi , 475 U.S. 387, 396 (1986). (3) Issue four is overruled.	1	1
United States v. Inadigreen scotus · 1986 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 1 sentence 2000See White v. Illinois , 502 U.S. 346, 354 (1992); United States v. Inadi , 475 U.S. 387, 396 (1986). (3) Issue four is overruled.	1	1
Davis v. Alaskagreen scotus · 1974 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 1 sentence 1999Davis v. Alaska , 415 U.S. 308, 315-16 (1974).	1	1
Jolly v. Stategreen texapp · 1984 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986 1 sentence 1986In Jolly v. State, 681 S.W.2d 689, 695 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, pet. *273 granted) the court held appellant’s complaint therein to the admissibility of the video tape interview between the specialist and the complaining child witness as a denial of his right to confront and cross-examine the child to be without merit.	1	1
Tolbert v. Stategreen texapp · 1985 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986 2 sentences 1986In Tolbert v. State, 697 S.W.2d 795, 799 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1985, pet. granted) the court, following the reasoning in Green , held that article 38.-071, section 2, was not •prima fade viola-tive of the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause even though the statute fails to provide that a defendant be afforded the opportunity to conduct cross-examination simultaneously with the taking of a complaining child witness’ video tape statement. 1986Tolbert, 697 S.W.2d at 799 .	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

Case	Cited	Years
Bruton v. United States green scotus · 1968 2 sentences 1973We further make reference to Evans, supra, for our discussion of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 , holding that the admission in evidence of a confession of a co-defendant who did not take the stand, and whom the defendant did not have the opportunity to cross-examine, deprived the defendant of his rights under the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause of the Constitution of the United States, where that confession implicates the defendant. 1973We further make reference to Evans, supra, for our discussion of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 , holding that the admission in evidence of a confession of a co-defendant who did not take the stand, and whom the defendant did not have the opportunity to cross-examine, deprived the defendant of his rights under the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause of the Constitution of the United States, where that confession implicates the defendant.	2	1973–1999
United States v. Anita Yates green ca11 · 2005 1 sentence 2019After voir dire but prior to the presentation of evidence, the State made an oral motion to allow the SANE, as an expert and a fact witness to the extent of what the sexual assault examination entailed and evidence she gathered incident to the examination, to testify via “Face Time.” The defense objected under the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause and the Fifth Amendment due process clause, and cited Maryland v. Craig, and U.S. v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2006) in support.	1	2019–2019
Schneble v. Florida green scotus · 1972 2 sentences 1999In Bruton , the Supreme Court held “that the admission of a confession of a co-defendant who did not take the stand deprived the defendant of his rights under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation clause when that confession implicated the defendant.” Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 429-30 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972). 1999In Bruton , the Supreme Court held “that the admission of a confession of a co-defendant who did not take the stand deprived the defendant of his rights under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation clause when that confession implicated the defendant.” Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 429-30 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972).	1	1999–1999
Roberts v. Russell green scotus · 1968 2 sentences 1975In Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293 , 88 S.Ct. 1921 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1100 , the Supreme Court held Bru-ton applicable to state proceedings. 1975In Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293 , 88 S.Ct. 1921 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1100 , the Supreme Court held Bru-ton applicable to state proceedings.	1	1975–1975
Evans v. State green texcrimapp · 1973 1 sentence 1973We further make reference to Evans, supra, for our discussion of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 , holding that the admission in evidence of a confession of a co-defendant who did not take the stand, and whom the defendant did not have the opportunity to cross-examine, deprived the defendant of his rights under the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause of the Constitution of the United States, where that confession implicates the defendant.	1	1973–1973

Where else courts name it

CA 46 (1998–2026) IL 35 (1987–2026) WA 20 (1987–2021) TX 16 (1973–2025) FL 6 (1986–2025) HI 6 (1994–2010) DC 5 (1983–2009) NJ 4 (1991–2004) WY 4 (1993–2017) MI 4 (1980–1982) IN 4 (1989–2025) CT 4 (1986–2010) WI 4 (1987–2022) NM 3 (1976–2013) AZ 3 (1976–1988) VA 3 (1991–2015) MN 3 (1986–1990) PA 3 (1981–2001) MO 3 (1996–2014) SD 2 (1980–2000) NY 2 (1979–1983) OH 2 (2003–2012) MS 2 (1993–2001) MA 2 (2008–2009) LA 2 (1990–2006) ID 2 (2002–2011) NC 2 (1988–2006) ME 2 (1979–2022) RI 2 (1987–2004) KS 2 (1989–1993)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check