Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ohio v. Robertsred2 sentences2016Prior to 2004, the United States Supreme Court authorized admission of an unavailable witness’s out-of-court statement if the statement was “within a firmly rooted hearsay exception” and the court found “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2539 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 608 (1980). 2016Prior to 2004, the United States Supreme Court authorized admission of an unavailable witness’s out-of-court statement if the statement was “within a firmly rooted hearsay exception” and the court found “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2539 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 608 (1980). | 4 | 9 |
Idaho v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2002As the Court later explained its holding: In Roberts , we suggested that the "indicia of reliability" requirement could be met in either of two circumstances: where the hearsay statement "falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception," or where it is supported by "a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness." [ Wright, supra, 497 U.S. at 816 , 110 S.Ct. at 3147 , 111 L.Ed. 2d at 653 (quoting Roberts, supra, 448 U.S. at 66 , 100 S.Ct. at 2539 , 65 L.Ed. 2d at 608 ).] The "unavailability" requirement of Roberts was refined in United States v. Inadi, 475 U.S. 387, 393-94 , 106 S.Ct 2002As the Court later explained its holding: In Roberts , we suggested that the "indicia of reliability" requirement could be met in either of two circumstances: where the hearsay statement "falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception," or where it is supported by "a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness." [ Wright, supra, 497 U.S. at 816 , 110 S.Ct. at 3147 , 111 L.Ed. 2d at 653 (quoting Roberts, supra, 448 U.S. at 66 , 100 S.Ct. at 2539 , 65 L.Ed. 2d at 608 ).] The "unavailability" requirement of Roberts was refined in United States v. Inadi, 475 U.S. 387, 393-94 , 106 S.Ct | 2 | 6 |
Crawford v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2015We need not recount in great detail the sea change occasioned by the Supreme Court's decision in Crawford, prior to which hearsay statements were admitted without running afoul of the Confrontation Clause if they fell "under a firmly rooted hearsay exception or [bore] particularized guarantees of trustworthiness." 541 U.S. at 40 , 124 S. Ct. at 1358 , 158 L. 2015We need not recount in great detail the sea change occasioned by the Supreme Court's decision in Crawford, prior to which hearsay statements were admitted without running afoul of the Confrontation Clause if they fell "under a firmly rooted hearsay exception or [bore] particularized guarantees of trustworthiness." 541 U.S. at 40 , 124 S. Ct. at 1358 , 158 L. | 2 | 4 |
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harold S. McCLINTOCK, Defendant-Appellantgreen2 sentences1990See, e.g., Pickett v. Bowen, 798 F.2d 1385 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. McClintock, 748 F.2d 1278, 1291-1292 (9th Cir.1984), cert. den. 474 U.S. 822 , 106 S.Ct. 75 , 88 L.Ed.2d 61 (1985); see also United States v. Oates, 560 F.2d 45, 80-82 (2d Cir.1977); cf. Idaho v. Wright, supra, — U.S. at -, 110 S.Ct. at -, 111 L.Ed.2d at 653 (“Admission under a firmly rooted hearsay exception satisfies the constitutional requirement of reliability because of the weight accorded longstanding judicial and legislative experience in assessing the trustworthiness of certain types of out-of-court statements 1990See, e.g., Pickett v. Bowen, 798 F. 2d 1385 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. McClintock, 748 F. 2d 1278, 1291-1292 (9th Cir.1984), cert. den. 474 U.S. 822 , 106 S.Ct. 75 , 88 L.Ed. 2d 61 (1985); see also United States v. Oates, 560 F. 2d 45, 80-82 (2d Cir.1977); cf. Idaho v. Wright, supra , ___ U.S. at ___, 110 S.Ct. at ___ , 111 L.Ed. 2d at 653 ("Admission under a firmly rooted hearsay exception satisfies the constitutional requirement of reliability because of the weight accorded longstanding judicial and legislative experience *216 in assessing the trustworthiness of certain types of out-o | 2 | 2 |
John Edward Pickett v. George Bowen, Warden Charles A. Graddick, Attorney Generalgreen2 sentences1990See, e.g., Pickett v. Bowen, 798 F.2d 1385 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. McClintock, 748 F.2d 1278, 1291-1292 (9th Cir.1984), cert. den. 474 U.S. 822 , 106 S.Ct. 75 , 88 L.Ed.2d 61 (1985); see also United States v. Oates, 560 F.2d 45, 80-82 (2d Cir.1977); cf. Idaho v. Wright, supra, — U.S. at -, 110 S.Ct. at -, 111 L.Ed.2d at 653 (“Admission under a firmly rooted hearsay exception satisfies the constitutional requirement of reliability because of the weight accorded longstanding judicial and legislative experience in assessing the trustworthiness of certain types of out-of-court statements 1990See, e.g., Pickett v. Bowen, 798 F. 2d 1385 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. McClintock, 748 F. 2d 1278, 1291-1292 (9th Cir.1984), cert. den. 474 U.S. 822 , 106 S.Ct. 75 , 88 L.Ed. 2d 61 (1985); see also United States v. Oates, 560 F. 2d 45, 80-82 (2d Cir.1977); cf. Idaho v. Wright, supra , ___ U.S. at ___, 110 S.Ct. at ___ , 111 L.Ed. 2d at 653 ("Admission under a firmly rooted hearsay exception satisfies the constitutional requirement of reliability because of the weight accorded longstanding judicial and legislative experience *216 in assessing the trustworthiness of certain types of out-o | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Paul v. Oatesgreen2 sentences1990See, e.g., Pickett v. Bowen, 798 F.2d 1385 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. McClintock, 748 F.2d 1278, 1291-1292 (9th Cir.1984), cert. den. 474 U.S. 822 , 106 S.Ct. 75 , 88 L.Ed.2d 61 (1985); see also United States v. Oates, 560 F.2d 45, 80-82 (2d Cir.1977); cf. Idaho v. Wright, supra, — U.S. at -, 110 S.Ct. at -, 111 L.Ed.2d at 653 (“Admission under a firmly rooted hearsay exception satisfies the constitutional requirement of reliability because of the weight accorded longstanding judicial and legislative experience in assessing the trustworthiness of certain types of out-of-court statements 1990See, e.g., Pickett v. Bowen, 798 F. 2d 1385 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. McClintock, 748 F. 2d 1278, 1291-1292 (9th Cir.1984), cert. den. 474 U.S. 822 , 106 S.Ct. 75 , 88 L.Ed. 2d 61 (1985); see also United States v. Oates, 560 F. 2d 45, 80-82 (2d Cir.1977); cf. Idaho v. Wright, supra , ___ U.S. at ___, 110 S.Ct. at ___ , 111 L.Ed. 2d at 653 ("Admission under a firmly rooted hearsay exception satisfies the constitutional requirement of reliability because of the weight accorded longstanding judicial and legislative experience *216 in assessing the trustworthiness of certain types of out-o | 2 | 2 |
Mattox v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1989Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 , 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2782-2783 , 97 L.Ed. 2d 144 (1987); see also Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 243-244 , 15 S.Ct. 337, 340 , 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895) (expressing the view that the introduction of evidence pursuant to the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule does not violate a criminal defendant's constitutional rights). 1989Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 , 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2782-2783 , 97 L.Ed. 2d 144 (1987); see also Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 243-244 , 15 S.Ct. 337, 340 , 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895) (expressing the view that the introduction of evidence pursuant to the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule does not violate a criminal defendant's constitutional rights). | 2 | 2 |
Bourjaily v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1993Our conclusion that the State could have introduced Slover's statement to the police for impeachment purposes is also supported by the line of cases which hold that "[b]ecause `hearsay rules and the Confrontation Clause are generally designed to protect similar values,' and `stem from the same roots,' ... no independent inquiry into reliability is required when the evidence `falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.'" Bourjaily v. United States, supra, 483 U.S. at 182-83 , 107 S.Ct. at 2782 , 97 L.Ed. 2d at 157 (citations omitted); accord Ohio v. Roberts, supra, 448 U.S. at 65-66 , 100 S 1993Our conclusion that the State could have introduced Slover's statement to the police for impeachment purposes is also supported by the line of cases which hold that "[b]ecause `hearsay rules and the Confrontation Clause are generally designed to protect similar values,' and `stem from the same roots,' ... no independent inquiry into reliability is required when the evidence `falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.'" Bourjaily v. United States, supra, 483 U.S. at 182-83 , 107 S.Ct. at 2782 , 97 L.Ed. 2d at 157 (citations omitted); accord Ohio v. Roberts, supra, 448 U.S. at 65-66 , 100 S | 1 | 3 |
Miller v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Miller v. State, 266 Ga. 850 , 472 S.E.2d 74, 78 (1996) (citing State in the Interest of J.H., supra). 2002Miller v. State, 266 Ga. 850 , 472 S.E.2d 74, 78 (1996) (citing State in the Interest of J.H., supra). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Inadigreen2 sentences2002As the Court later explained its holding: In Roberts , we suggested that the "indicia of reliability" requirement could be met in either of two circumstances: where the hearsay statement "falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception," or where it is supported by "a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness." [ Wright, supra, 497 U.S. at 816 , 110 S.Ct. at 3147 , 111 L.Ed. 2d at 653 (quoting Roberts, supra, 448 U.S. at 66 , 100 S.Ct. at 2539 , 65 L.Ed. 2d at 608 ).] The "unavailability" requirement of Roberts was refined in United States v. Inadi, 475 U.S. 387, 393-94 , 106 S.Ct 2002As the Court later explained its holding: In Roberts , we suggested that the "indicia of reliability" requirement could be met in either of two circumstances: where the hearsay statement "falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception," or where it is supported by "a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness." [ Wright, supra, 497 U.S. at 816 , 110 S.Ct. at 3147 , 111 L.Ed. 2d at 653 (quoting Roberts, supra, 448 U.S. at 66 , 100 S.Ct. at 2539 , 65 L.Ed. 2d at 608 ).] The "unavailability" requirement of Roberts was refined in United States v. Inadi, 475 U.S. 387, 393-94 , 106 S.Ct | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lee v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1999If hearsay evidence “does not fall within ‘a firmly rooted hearsay exception’ and is thus presumptively unreliable and inadmissible for Confrontation Clause purposes, it may nonetheless meet Confrontation Clause reliability standards if it is supported by a ‘showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.’ ” Id. at 817 , 110 S.Ct. at 3147 , 111 L.Ed.2d at 653 (quoting Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 543 , 106 S.Ct. 2056 , 90 L.Ed.2d 514 (1986)). 1999If hearsay evidence “does not fall within ‘a firmly rooted hearsay exception’ and is thus presumptively unreliable and inadmissible for Confrontation Clause purposes, it may nonetheless meet Confrontation Clause reliability standards if it is supported by a ‘showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.’ ” Id. at 817 , 110 S.Ct. at 3147 , 111 L.Ed.2d at 653 (quoting Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 543 , 106 S.Ct. 2056 , 90 L.Ed.2d 514 (1986)). | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Steines v. Rock Island Arsenal Department of Army
green
2 sentences1990See, e.g., Pickett v. Bowen, 798 F.2d 1385 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. McClintock, 748 F.2d 1278, 1291-1292 (9th Cir.1984), cert. den. 474 U.S. 822 , 106 S.Ct. 75 , 88 L.Ed.2d 61 (1985); see also United States v. Oates, 560 F.2d 45, 80-82 (2d Cir.1977); cf. Idaho v. Wright, supra, — U.S. at -, 110 S.Ct. at -, 111 L.Ed.2d at 653 (“Admission under a firmly rooted hearsay exception satisfies the constitutional requirement of reliability because of the weight accorded longstanding judicial and legislative experience in assessing the trustworthiness of certain types of out-of-court statements 1990See, e.g., Pickett v. Bowen, 798 F. 2d 1385 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. McClintock, 748 F. 2d 1278, 1291-1292 (9th Cir.1984), cert. den. 474 U.S. 822 , 106 S.Ct. 75 , 88 L.Ed. 2d 61 (1985); see also United States v. Oates, 560 F. 2d 45, 80-82 (2d Cir.1977); cf. Idaho v. Wright, supra , ___ U.S. at ___, 110 S.Ct. at ___ , 111 L.Ed. 2d at 653 ("Admission under a firmly rooted hearsay exception satisfies the constitutional requirement of reliability because of the weight accorded longstanding judicial and legislative experience *216 in assessing the trustworthiness of certain types of out-o | 2 | 1990–1990 |
Beeker v. Commissioner
green
2 sentences1990See, e.g., Pickett v. Bowen, 798 F.2d 1385 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. McClintock, 748 F.2d 1278, 1291-1292 (9th Cir.1984), cert. den. 474 U.S. 822 , 106 S.Ct. 75 , 88 L.Ed.2d 61 (1985); see also United States v. Oates, 560 F.2d 45, 80-82 (2d Cir.1977); cf. Idaho v. Wright, supra, — U.S. at -, 110 S.Ct. at -, 111 L.Ed.2d at 653 (“Admission under a firmly rooted hearsay exception satisfies the constitutional requirement of reliability because of the weight accorded longstanding judicial and legislative experience in assessing the trustworthiness of certain types of out-of-court statements 1990See, e.g., Pickett v. Bowen, 798 F. 2d 1385 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. McClintock, 748 F. 2d 1278, 1291-1292 (9th Cir.1984), cert. den. 474 U.S. 822 , 106 S.Ct. 75 , 88 L.Ed. 2d 61 (1985); see also United States v. Oates, 560 F. 2d 45, 80-82 (2d Cir.1977); cf. Idaho v. Wright, supra , ___ U.S. at ___, 110 S.Ct. at ___ , 111 L.Ed. 2d at 653 ("Admission under a firmly rooted hearsay exception satisfies the constitutional requirement of reliability because of the weight accorded longstanding judicial and legislative experience *216 in assessing the trustworthiness of certain types of out-o | 2 | 1990–1990 |
City of Sugar Land v. SignAd, Inc.
green
2 sentences1990See, e.g., Pickett v. Bowen, 798 F.2d 1385 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. McClintock, 748 F.2d 1278, 1291-1292 (9th Cir.1984), cert. den. 474 U.S. 822 , 106 S.Ct. 75 , 88 L.Ed.2d 61 (1985); see also United States v. Oates, 560 F.2d 45, 80-82 (2d Cir.1977); cf. Idaho v. Wright, supra, — U.S. at -, 110 S.Ct. at -, 111 L.Ed.2d at 653 (“Admission under a firmly rooted hearsay exception satisfies the constitutional requirement of reliability because of the weight accorded longstanding judicial and legislative experience in assessing the trustworthiness of certain types of out-of-court statements 1990See, e.g., Pickett v. Bowen, 798 F. 2d 1385 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. McClintock, 748 F. 2d 1278, 1291-1292 (9th Cir.1984), cert. den. 474 U.S. 822 , 106 S.Ct. 75 , 88 L.Ed. 2d 61 (1985); see also United States v. Oates, 560 F. 2d 45, 80-82 (2d Cir.1977); cf. Idaho v. Wright, supra , ___ U.S. at ___, 110 S.Ct. at ___ , 111 L.Ed. 2d at 653 ("Admission under a firmly rooted hearsay exception satisfies the constitutional requirement of reliability because of the weight accorded longstanding judicial and legislative experience *216 in assessing the trustworthiness of certain types of out-o | 2 | 1990–1990 |
White v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1993Id. 502 U.S. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 739 , 116 L.Ed.2d at 855 . 1993Id. 502 U.S. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 739 , 116 L.Ed.2d at 855 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.