15 Virginia opinions name it 3 courts 2004–2023 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virginia 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 |
|---|---|---|
Longshore v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2023Longshore v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 3, 3-4 (2000) (emphases added); Schneider v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 609, 613 (2006) (affirming the pre-Crawford test “complies with the new requirements of Crawford without alteration”). 2023Longshore v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 3, 3-4 (2000) (emphases added); Schneider v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 609, 613 (2006) (affirming the pre-Crawford test “complies with the new requirements of Crawford without alteration”). | 3 | 3 |
Schneider v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2023Longshore v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 3, 3-4 (2000) (emphases added); Schneider v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 609, 613 (2006) (affirming the pre-Crawford test “complies with the new requirements of Crawford without alteration”). 2023Longshore v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 3, 3-4 (2000) (emphases added); Schneider v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 609, 613 (2006) (affirming the pre-Crawford test “complies with the new requirements of Crawford without alteration”). | 3 | 3 |
Johnson v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2007As nearly all courts and commentators have agreed, Crawford did not overrule Craig . 5 Whether it could have or should have, we do not say, and it is not our place to predict whether any of Crawford’s progeny will do so. ‘When a precedent of the Supreme Court has direct application in a case, we are not at liberty to ignore that precedent in favor of other Supreme Court decisions employing a similar analysis in a different factual and legal context.” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 53, 76 , 591 S.E.2d 47, 60 (2004) (citation omitted). 2007As nearly all courts and commentators have agreed, Crawford did not overrule Craig . 5 Whether it could have or should have, we do not say, and it is not our place to predict whether any of Crawford’s progeny will do so. ‘When a precedent of the Supreme Court has direct application in a case, we are not at liberty to ignore that precedent in favor of other Supreme Court decisions employing a similar analysis in a different factual and legal context.” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 53, 76 , 591 S.E.2d 47, 60 (2004) (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Porter v. Com.green2 sentences2008Porter v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 203, 240 , 661 S.E.2d 415, 433 (2008). 2008Porter v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 203, 240 , 661 S.E.2d 415, 433 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
Luginbyhl v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2008“It is well established that violations of the Confrontation Clause, if preserved for appellate review, are subject to harmless error review, . . . and Crawford does not suggest otherwise.” Luginbyhl v. Commonwealth, 48 Va. App. 58, 64 , 628 S.E.2d 74, 77 (2006) (en banc) (citation omitted). 2008“It is well established that violations of the Confrontation Clause, if preserved for appellate review, are subject to harmless error review, . . . and Crawford does not suggest otherwise.” Luginbyhl v. Commonwealth, 48 Va. App. 58, 64 , 628 S.E.2d 74, 77 (2006) (en banc) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Hattergreen2 sentences2007Lower courts must “follow the case which directly controls,” leaving to the Supreme Court the sole “prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Id. (citation omitted); see also United States v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557, 567 , 121 S.Ct. 1782, 1790 , 149 L.Ed.2d 820 (2001); State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20 , 118 S.Ct. 275, 284 , 139 L.Ed.2d 199 (1997) (stating “it is this Court’s prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents”). 2007Lower courts must “follow the case which directly controls,” leaving to the Supreme Court the sole “prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Id. (citation omitted); see also United States v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557, 567 , 121 S.Ct. 1782, 1790 , 149 L.Ed.2d 820 (2001); State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20 , 118 S.Ct. 275, 284 , 139 L.Ed.2d 199 (1997) (stating “it is this Court’s prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents”). | 1 | 1 |
Blackman v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2006See Blackman v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 633, 644-45 , 613 S.E.2d 460, 466 (2005) (assuming codefendant’s hearsay statements to inmate admitted at joint trial was testimonial, its admission did not violate Crawford where the codefendant and inmate testified at trial). -8- Here, Flores testified at trial for the Commonwealth and the defense and was subjected to cross-examination. 2006See Blackman v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 633, 644-45 , 613 S.E.2d 460, 466 (2005) (assuming codefendant’s hearsay statements to inmate admitted at joint trial was testimonial, its admission did not violate Crawford where the codefendant and inmate testified at trial). -8- Here, Flores testified at trial for the Commonwealth and the defense and was subjected to cross-examination. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2005Seeking to emphasize the point, the majority in Crawford said, “we reiterate that, when the declarant appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of his prior testimonial statements.” Id. (citing Green, 399 U.S. at 162 , 90 S.Ct. at 1937 ) (emphasis added); see People v. Martinez, 348 Ill.App.3d 521 , 284 Ill.Dec. 546 , 810 N.E.2d 199, 212 (2004) (holding no Crawford violation occurs where the declarant was “available in court and on the *645 witness stand”)- For this reason, Crawford supports the trial judge’s decision not to declar 2005Seeking to emphasize the point, the majority in Crawford said, “we reiterate that, when the declarant appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of his prior testimonial statements.” Id. (citing Green, 399 U.S. at 162 , 90 S.Ct. at 1937 ) (emphasis added); see People v. Martinez, 348 Ill.App.3d 521 , 284 Ill.Dec. 546 , 810 N.E.2d 199, 212 (2004) (holding no Crawford violation occurs where the declarant was “available in court and on the *645 witness stand”)- For this reason, Crawford supports the trial judge’s decision not to declar | 1 | 1 |
Oleyar v. Kerr, Trusteegreen2 sentences2004O ’Connell v. Bean, 263 Va. 176, 181 , 556 S.E.2d 741 (2002); Olyear v. Kerr, Trustee, 217 Va. 88, 90 , 225 S.E.2d 398, 400 (1976). 2004O ’Connell v. Bean, 263 Va. 176, 181 , 556 S.E.2d 741 (2002); Olyear v. Kerr, Trustee, 217 Va. 88, 90 , 225 S.E.2d 398, 400 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2009The Confrontation Clause and the Admissibility of the Affidavit In denying Crawford’s motion to suppress the statements contained in the affidavit, the trial court found that Crawford “ha[d] forfeited his Sixth Amendment right to confront [Sarah’s] testimony because he intentionally procured her unavailability to testify.” In reaching this conclusion, the trial court stated that, “[t]o apply the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine, this [c]ourt must find by a preponderance of the evidence ... that [Crawford] is responsible for [Sarah’s] unavailability as a witness and therefore forfeited his rig 2009The Confrontation Clause and the Admissibility of the Affidavit In denying Crawford’s motion to suppress the statements contained in the affidavit, the trial court found that Crawford “ha[d] forfeited his Sixth Amendment right to confront [Sarah’s] testimony because he intentionally procured her unavailability to testify.” In reaching this conclusion, the trial court stated that, “[t]o apply the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine, this [c]ourt must find by a preponderance of the evidence ... that [Crawford] is responsible for [Sarah’s] unavailability as a witness and therefore forfeited his rig | 2 | 2005–2009 |
Curtis v. Chester
green
2 sentences2011Regarding the Crawford challenge, the court simply held that case did not apply, noting "[a]ll the circuit courts that have expressly considered this issue agree." 626 F.3d at 544 . 2011Regarding the Crawford challenge, the court simply held that case did not apply, noting "[a]ll the circuit courts that have expressly considered this issue agree." 626 F.3d at 544 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Wimbish v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2009We note that this case is very different from Wimbish, 51 Va.App. 474 , 658 S.E.2d 715 , where we rejected a Crawford challenge to the admission of, inter alia, the attestation clause on a certificate of analysis. 2009We note that this case is very different from Wimbish, 51 Va.App. 474 , 658 S.E.2d 715 , where we rejected a Crawford challenge to the admission of, inter alia, the attestation clause on a certificate of analysis. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Sawyer v. Smith
green
2 sentences2007The Court continued, “The Crawford rule also did not ‘alter our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements essential to the fairness of a proceeding.’ ” Id. at 1183 (quoting Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 242 , 110 S.Ct. 2822, 2831 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990)). 2007The Court continued, “The Crawford rule also did not ‘alter our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements essential to the fairness of a proceeding.’ ” Id. at 1183 (quoting Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 242 , 110 S.Ct. 2822, 2831 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990)). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State Oil Co. v. Khan
red
2 sentences2007Lower courts must “follow the case which directly controls,” leaving to the Supreme Court the sole “prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Id. (citation omitted); see also United States v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557, 567 , 121 S.Ct. 1782, 1790 , 149 L.Ed.2d 820 (2001); State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20 , 118 S.Ct. 275, 284 , 139 L.Ed.2d 199 (1997) (stating “it is this Court’s prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents”). 2007Lower courts must “follow the case which directly controls,” leaving to the Supreme Court the sole “prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Id. (citation omitted); see also United States v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557, 567 , 121 S.Ct. 1782, 1790 , 149 L.Ed.2d 820 (2001); State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20 , 118 S.Ct. 275, 284 , 139 L.Ed.2d 199 (1997) (stating “it is this Court’s prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents”). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Michels v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2007Id. at 465, 624 S.E.2d at 677 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
California v. Green
red
2 sentences2005Seeking to emphasize the point, the majority in Crawford said, “we reiterate that, when the declarant appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of his prior testimonial statements.” Id. (citing Green, 399 U.S. at 162 , 90 S.Ct. at 1937 ) (emphasis added); see People v. Martinez, 348 Ill.App.3d 521 , 284 Ill.Dec. 546 , 810 N.E.2d 199, 212 (2004) (holding no Crawford violation occurs where the declarant was “available in court and on the *645 witness stand”)- For this reason, Crawford supports the trial judge’s decision not to declar 2005Seeking to emphasize the point, the majority in Crawford said, “we reiterate that, when the declarant appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of his prior testimonial statements.” Id. (citing Green, 399 U.S. at 162 , 90 S.Ct. at 1937 ) (emphasis added); see People v. Martinez, 348 Ill.App.3d 521 , 284 Ill.Dec. 546 , 810 N.E.2d 199, 212 (2004) (holding no Crawford violation occurs where the declarant was “available in court and on the *645 witness stand”)- For this reason, Crawford supports the trial judge’s decision not to declar | 1 | 2005–2005 |
O'CONNELL v. Bean
green
2 sentences2004O ’Connell v. Bean, 263 Va. 176, 181 , 556 S.E.2d 741 (2002); Olyear v. Kerr, Trustee, 217 Va. 88, 90 , 225 S.E.2d 398, 400 (1976). 2004O ’Connell v. Bean, 263 Va. 176, 181 , 556 S.E.2d 741 (2002); Olyear v. Kerr, Trustee, 217 Va. 88, 90 , 225 S.E.2d 398, 400 (1976). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.