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.
13 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Byrdgreen2 sentences2026For the admission of a witness's out-of-court statement under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception, the State must prove "by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant engaged, directly or indirectly, in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the witness's unavailability." Id. at 352 ; see also State v. Rinker, 446 N.J. 2026N.J.R.E. 804(b)(9) provides that "[a] statement offered against a party who has engaged, directly or indirectly, in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness" is not "excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness." The forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception "extinguishes a defendant's confrontation rights to keep a hearsay statement from the jury [only] when the defendant has procured the unavailability of a witness through his wrongful conduct." State v. Cabbell, 207 N.J. 311, 335 (2011). "[T]he admission of evid | 4 | 6 |
Giles v. Californiagreen2 sentences2021Giles examined both Woodcock and Dingler and recognized a forfeiture by wrongdoing exception to the Confrontation Clause where the statement either “was confronted or fell within the dying- declarations exception.” 554 U.S. at 361-63 (emphasis added). 2021Four years after Crawford, in Giles v. California, the Court again addressed a defendant’s confrontation rights when a witness is unavailable to testify at trial; in Giles, however, the focus was on the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing.6 554 U.S. at 355 . | 3 | 3 |
Crawford v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2009That is so because the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing rule “extinguishes confrontation claims on essentially equitable grounds.” Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 62 , 124 S.Ct. 1354, 1370, 158 L.Ed.2d 177, 199 (2004). 2009That is so because the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing rule “extinguishes confrontation claims on essentially equitable grounds.” Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 62 , 124 S.Ct. 1354, 1370, 158 L.Ed.2d 177, 199 (2004). | 3 | 3 |
State of New Jersey v. Ryan J. Rinkergreen2 sentences2026For the admission of a witness's out-of-court statement under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception, the State must prove "by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant engaged, directly or indirectly, in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the witness's unavailability." Id. at 352 ; see also State v. Rinker, 446 N.J. 2022See generally State v. Rinker, 446 N.J. | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Josephine Virginia Gray, A/K/A Josephine Stribbling, A/K/A Josephine Millsgreen2 sentences2009See Reynolds, supra, 98 U.S. at 159 , 25 L.Ed. at 248 ; United States v. Gray, 405 F. 3d 227, 242 (4th Cir.) ("[F]ederal courts have recognized that the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception is necessary to prevent wrongdoers from profiting by their misconduct."), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 912 , 126 S.Ct. 275 , 163 L.Ed. 2d 245 (2005). 2009See Reynolds, supra, 98 U.S. at 159 , 25 L.Ed. at 248 ; United States v. Gray, 405 F.3d 227, 242 (4th Cir.) (“[FJederal courts have recognized that the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception is necessary to prevent wrongdoers from profiting by their misconduct.”), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 912 , 126 S.Ct. 275 , 163 L.Ed.2d 245 (2005). | 2 | 2 |
Reynolds v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2009See Reynolds, supra, 98 U.S. at 159 , 25 L.Ed. at 248 ; United States v. Gray, 405 F.3d 227, 242 (4th Cir.) (“[FJederal courts have recognized that the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception is necessary to prevent wrongdoers from profiting by their misconduct.”), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 912 , 126 S.Ct. 275 , 163 L.Ed.2d 245 (2005). 2009See Reynolds, supra, 98 U.S. at 159 , 25 L.Ed. at 248 ; United States v. Gray, 405 F.3d 227, 242 (4th Cir.) (“[FJederal courts have recognized that the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception is necessary to prevent wrongdoers from profiting by their misconduct.”), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 912 , 126 S.Ct. 275 , 163 L.Ed.2d 245 (2005). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Henrygreen2 sentences2009App.) (“Although the Indiana Rules of Evidence do not contain a similar provision [analogous to Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6) ], we see no reason why the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing may not be applied as a matter of common law” in accordance with Indiana Rule of Evidence 101(a), permitting common law evidence rules.), trans. denied, 878 N.E.2d 208 (Ind. 2007); State v. Henry, 76 Conn.App. 515 , 820 A.2d 1076, 1090 (relying on “ ‘savings clause,’ ” Conn.Code Evid. § l-2(b), to admit victim’s hearsay statements pursuant to forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine), appeal denied, 264 Conn 2009App.) (“Although the Indiana Rules of Evidence do not contain a similar provision [analogous to Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6) ], we see no reason why the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing may not be applied as a matter of common law” in accordance with Indiana Rule of Evidence 101(a), permitting common law evidence rules.), trans. denied, 878 N.E.2d 208 (Ind. 2007); State v. Henry, 76 Conn.App. 515 , 820 A.2d 1076, 1090 (relying on “ ‘savings clause,’ ” Conn.Code Evid. § l-2(b), to admit victim’s hearsay statements pursuant to forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine), appeal denied, 264 Conn | 2 | 2 |
Boyd v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See, e.g., Vasquez v. People, 173 P. 3d 1099, 1106 (Colo.2007) ("The fact that the defendant has forfeited his confrontation rights by wrongdoing does not render the evidence reliable.... [T]he reliability of the evidence must still be ensured according to the standards of the Colorado *301 Rules of Evidence [and its residual hearsay exception]."); Boyd v. State, 866 N.E. 2d 855, 857 (Ind.Ct.App.) ("Although the Indiana Rules of Evidence do not contain a similar provision [analogous to Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6)], we see no reason why the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing may not be 2009See, e.g., Vasquez v. People, 173 P.3d 1099, 1106 (Colo.2007) (“The fact that the defendant has forfeited his confrontation rights by wrongdoing does not render the evidence reliable.... [T]he reliability of the evidence must still be ensured according to the standards of the Colorado Rules of Evidence [and its residual hearsay exception].”); Boyd v. State, 866 N.E.2d 855, 857 (Ind.Ct. | 2 | 2 |
Vasquez v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2009See, e.g., Vasquez v. People, 173 P. 3d 1099, 1106 (Colo.2007) ("The fact that the defendant has forfeited his confrontation rights by wrongdoing does not render the evidence reliable.... [T]he reliability of the evidence must still be ensured according to the standards of the Colorado *301 Rules of Evidence [and its residual hearsay exception]."); Boyd v. State, 866 N.E. 2d 855, 857 (Ind.Ct.App.) ("Although the Indiana Rules of Evidence do not contain a similar provision [analogous to Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6)], we see no reason why the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing may not be 2009In Vasquez v. People, the Supreme Court of Colorado held that the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing only applies to confrontation rights and does not preclude hearsay objections. 173 P.3d 1099, 1101-02 (2007) (en banc). | 2 | 2 |
State v. DRgreen2 sentences2009D.R., supra, 109 N.J. at 352, 375 , 537 A.2d 667 . 2009D.R., supra, 109 N.J. at 352, 375 , 537 A.2d 667 . | 2 | 2 |
Robert L. Steele v. Terry D. Taylor, Supt., Owen J. Kilbane v. Ronald C. Marshall, Supt., Martin A. Kilbane v. Ronald C. Marshall, Supt.red2 sentences2009A defendant cannot prefer the law's preference and profit from it, as the Supreme Court said in Reynolds , while repudiating that preference by creating the condition that prevents it. [ 684 F. 2d 1193, 1202 (6th Cir.1982) (internal citations and quotations omitted).] Over a decade later, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia similarly explained that reliability was not the principal concern of the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing. 2009A defendant cannot prefer the law’s preference and profit from it, as the Supreme Court said in Reynolds , w'hile repudiating that preference by creating the condition that prevents it. [ 684 F.2d 1193, 1202 (6th Cir.1982) (internal citations and quotations omitted).] Over a decade later, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia similarly explained that reliability was not the principal concern of the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Gilesred2 sentences2009See People v. Giles, 40 Cal.4th 833 , 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 133 , 152 P.3d 433, 446-47 (2007). 2009See People v. Giles, 40 Cal.4th 833 , 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 133 , 152 P.3d 433, 446-47 (2007). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2009Last, the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine “furthers the truth-seeking function of the adversary process, allowing fact finders access to valuable evidence no longer available through live testimony.” Commonwealth v. Edwards, 444 Mass. 526 , 830 N.E.2d 158, 167 (2005). 2009Last, the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine “furthers the truth-seeking function of the adversary process, allowing fact finders access to valuable evidence no longer available through live testimony.” Commonwealth v. Edwards, 444 Mass. 526 , 830 N.E.2d 158, 167 (2005). | 2 | 2 |
Devonshire v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2009See Edwards, supra, 830 N.E. 2d at 166-67 ("[W]e are aware of no jurisdiction that, after considering the [forfeiture-by-wrongdoing] doctrine, has rejected it."); Devonshire v. United States, 691 A. 2d 165, 168 (D.C.) (noting "[a]ll federal and state courts that have addressed this issue, that we could find, have" accepted forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1247 , 117 S.Ct. 1859 , 137 L.Ed. 2d 1060 (1997). 2009See Edwards, supra, 830 N.E.2d at 166-67 (“[W]e are aware of no jurisdiction that, after considering the [forfeiture-by-wrongdoing] doctrine, has rejected it.”); Devonshire v. United States, 691 A2d 165, 168 (D.C.) (noting “[a]ll federal and state courts that have addressed this issue, that we could find, have” accepted forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1247 , 117 S.Ct. 1859 , 137 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1997). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Valenciagreen2 sentences2009App.) (“Although the Indiana Rules of Evidence do not contain a similar provision [analogous to Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6) ], we see no reason why the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing may not be applied as a matter of common law” in accordance with Indiana Rule of Evidence 101(a), permitting common law evidence rules.), trans. denied, 878 N.E.2d 208 (Ind. 2007); State v. Henry, 76 Conn.App. 515 , 820 A.2d 1076, 1090 (relying on “ ‘savings clause,’ ” Conn.Code Evid. § l-2(b), to admit victim’s hearsay statements pursuant to forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine), appeal denied, 264 Conn 2009App.) (“Although the Indiana Rules of Evidence do not contain a similar provision [analogous to Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6) ], we see no reason why the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing may not be applied as a matter of common law” in accordance with Indiana Rule of Evidence 101(a), permitting common law evidence rules.), trans. denied, 878 N.E.2d 208 (Ind. 2007); State v. Henry, 76 Conn.App. 515 , 820 A.2d 1076, 1090 (relying on “ ‘savings clause,’ ” Conn.Code Evid. § l-2(b), to admit victim’s hearsay statements pursuant to forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine), appeal denied, 264 Conn | 2 | 2 |
| United States v. Antwan Jacksongreen | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2026N.J.R.E. 804(b)(9) provides that "[a] statement offered against a party who has engaged, directly or indirectly, in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness" is not "excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness." The forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception "extinguishes a defendant's confrontation rights to keep a hearsay statement from the jury [only] when the defendant has procured the unavailability of a witness through his wrongful conduct." State v. Cabbell, 207 N.J. 311, 335 (2011). "[T]he admission of evid | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. El Elsheikhgreen | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Martinez, Williamgreen1 sentence2026See, e.g., United States v. Houlihan, 92 F.3d 1271, 1279 (1st Cir. 1996) ("Moreover, it is sufficient in this regard to show that the evildoer was motivated in part by a desire to silence the witness; the intent to deprive the prosecution of testimony need not be the actor's sole motivation."); United States v. Roberts, 84 F.4th 659 , 667- 68 (6th Cir. 2023) (finding even if defendant had "multiple motives," his A-3454-22 21 "desire, at least in part, to prevent [a witness] from testifying" is "enough for the [forfeiture-by-wrongdoing] exception to apply," noting that "no circuit has held that | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Houlihangreen1 sentence2026See, e.g., United States v. Houlihan, 92 F.3d 1271, 1279 (1st Cir. 1996) ("Moreover, it is sufficient in this regard to show that the evildoer was motivated in part by a desire to silence the witness; the intent to deprive the prosecution of testimony need not be the actor's sole motivation."); United States v. Roberts, 84 F.4th 659 , 667- 68 (6th Cir. 2023) (finding even if defendant had "multiple motives," his A-3454-22 21 "desire, at least in part, to prevent [a witness] from testifying" is "enough for the [forfeiture-by-wrongdoing] exception to apply," noting that "no circuit has held that | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Cazaresgreen1 sentence2026See, e.g., United States v. Houlihan, 92 F.3d 1271, 1279 (1st Cir. 1996) ("Moreover, it is sufficient in this regard to show that the evildoer was motivated in part by a desire to silence the witness; the intent to deprive the prosecution of testimony need not be the actor's sole motivation."); United States v. Roberts, 84 F.4th 659 , 667- 68 (6th Cir. 2023) (finding even if defendant had "multiple motives," his A-3454-22 21 "desire, at least in part, to prevent [a witness] from testifying" is "enough for the [forfeiture-by-wrongdoing] exception to apply," noting that "no circuit has held that | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cabbellgreen2 sentences2026N.J.R.E. 804(b)(9) provides that "[a] statement offered against a party who has engaged, directly or indirectly, in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness" is not "excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness." The forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception "extinguishes a defendant's confrontation rights to keep a hearsay statement from the jury [only] when the defendant has procured the unavailability of a witness through his wrongful conduct." State v. Cabbell, 207 N.J. 311, 335 (2011). "[T]he admission of evid 2026N.J.R.E. 804(b)(9) provides that "[a] statement offered against a party who has engaged, directly or indirectly, in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness" is not "excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness." The forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception "extinguishes a defendant's confrontation rights to keep a hearsay statement from the jury [only] when the defendant has procured the unavailability of a witness through his wrongful conduct." State v. Cabbell, 207 N.J. 311, 335 (2011). "[T]he admission of evid | 1 | 1 |
State v. Grossgreen1 sentence2026A-3454-22 19 [A] prior statement that "(A) is contained in a sound recording or in a writing made or signed by the witness in circumstances establishing its reliability or (B) was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial or other judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative, administrative or grand jury proceeding, or in a deposition," N.J.R.E. 803(a)(1), . . . is admissible "as substantive evidence provided its reliability has been established by a preponderance of the evidence in light of all surrounding relevant circumstances," State v. Gross, 121 N.J. 18, 29 (1990). [Id. at 3 | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Rudolphgreen1 sentence2026See, e.g., United States v. Houlihan, 92 F.3d 1271, 1279 (1st Cir. 1996) ("Moreover, it is sufficient in this regard to show that the evildoer was motivated in part by a desire to silence the witness; the intent to deprive the prosecution of testimony need not be the actor's sole motivation."); United States v. Roberts, 84 F.4th 659 , 667- 68 (6th Cir. 2023) (finding even if defendant had "multiple motives," his A-3454-22 21 "desire, at least in part, to prevent [a witness] from testifying" is "enough for the [forfeiture-by-wrongdoing] exception to apply," noting that "no circuit has held that | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Sanchez-Medinagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ohio v. Clarkgreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Byrd
green
2 sentences2014In Byrd, supra, the Court likewise embraced a substantial change to the hearsay rules — the adoption of a forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception' — -and submitted the proposal to the Senate, General Assembly, and Governor for their review and approval. 198 N.J. at 325, 357 , 967 A.2d 285 . 2013The forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception to the hearsay rule would “allow the admission of a witness's statement offered against a party who has engaged, directly or indirectly, in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the witness." Id. at 324, 967 A.2d 285 . | 4 | 2011–2014 |
United States v. Antone R. White, A/K/A Tone
green
2 sentences2009The court noted that a number of jurisdictions had held that forfeiture by wrongdoing automatically prohibits a hearsay objection to the unavailable witness’s testimony, id. at 1106 , and further acknowledged that the “hearsay rules and the Confrontation Clause are generally designed to protect similar values, both defending against the dangers of using out-of-court declarations as proof,” and that the Confrontation Clause provides more expansive protections, ibid, (quoting White, supra, 116 F.3d at 912-13 ). 2009The court noted that a number of jurisdictions had held that forfeiture by wrongdoing automatically prohibits a hearsay objection to the unavailable witness’s testimony, id. at 1106 , and further acknowledged that the “hearsay rules and the Confrontation Clause are generally designed to protect similar values, both defending against the dangers of using out-of-court declarations as proof,” and that the Confrontation Clause provides more expansive protections, ibid, (quoting White, supra, 116 F.3d at 912-13 ). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Sheppard
green
2 sentences2009The court found that the methods employed by defendants to deliver their message may have been subtle, but that the message had the “extraordinary ... capacity to intimidate.” The court concluded that, from its first-hand observations of Bush, “fear prevents and has prevented and will continue to prevent [his] testimony.” On the basis of the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, articulated in federal cases and State v. Sheppard, 197 N.J.Super. 411 , 484 A.2d 1330 (Law Div.1984), the court determined that because defendants’ threatening conduct made Bush unavailable as a witness, defendants ha 2009The court found that the methods employed by defendants to deliver their message may have been subtle, but that the message had the “extraordinary ... capacity to intimidate.” The court concluded that, from its first-hand observations of Bush, “fear prevents and has prevented and will continue to prevent [his] testimony.” On the basis of the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, articulated in federal cases and State v. Sheppard, 197 N.J.Super. 411 , 484 A.2d 1330 (Law Div.1984), the court determined that because defendants’ threatening conduct made Bush unavailable as a witness, defendants ha | 2 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2009For example, unlike New Jersey, a number of jurisdictions, including the federal system, have catch-all or residual exceptions to their hearsay rules that give their courts greater leeway to recognize evidentiary rules that are not codified. 10 See State v. Brown, 170 N.J. 138, 152 , 784 A.2d 1244 (2001) (stating that “New Jersey has expressly declined to adopt the federal residual hearsay exception”). 2009For example, unlike New Jersey, a number of jurisdictions, including the federal system, have catch-all or residual exceptions to their hearsay rules that give their courts greater leeway to recognize evidentiary rules that are not codified. 10 See State v. Brown, 170 N.J. 138, 152 , 784 A.2d 1244 (2001) (stating that “New Jersey has expressly declined to adopt the federal residual hearsay exception”). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Gray v. United States
green
2 sentences2009See Reynolds, supra, 98 U.S. at 159 , 25 L.Ed. at 248 ; United States v. Gray, 405 F.3d 227, 242 (4th Cir.) (“[FJederal courts have recognized that the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception is necessary to prevent wrongdoers from profiting by their misconduct.”), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 912 , 126 S.Ct. 275 , 163 L.Ed.2d 245 (2005). 2009See Reynolds, supra, 98 U.S. at 159 , 25 L.Ed. at 248 ; United States v. Gray, 405 F.3d 227, 242 (4th Cir.) (“[FJederal courts have recognized that the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception is necessary to prevent wrongdoers from profiting by their misconduct.”), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 912 , 126 S.Ct. 275 , 163 L.Ed.2d 245 (2005). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Gelis v. United States
green
2 sentences2009See Edwards, supra, 830 N.E. 2d at 166-67 ("[W]e are aware of no jurisdiction that, after considering the [forfeiture-by-wrongdoing] doctrine, has rejected it."); Devonshire v. United States, 691 A. 2d 165, 168 (D.C.) (noting "[a]ll federal and state courts that have addressed this issue, that we could find, have" accepted forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1247 , 117 S.Ct. 1859 , 137 L.Ed. 2d 1060 (1997). 2009See Edwards, supra, 830 N.E.2d at 166-67 (“[W]e are aware of no jurisdiction that, after considering the [forfeiture-by-wrongdoing] doctrine, has rejected it.”); Devonshire v. United States, 691 A2d 165, 168 (D.C.) (noting “[a]ll federal and state courts that have addressed this issue, that we could find, have” accepted forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1247 , 117 S.Ct. 1859 , 137 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1997). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Diallo v. United States
green
2 sentences2009See Edwards, supra, 830 N.E. 2d at 166-67 ("[W]e are aware of no jurisdiction that, after considering the [forfeiture-by-wrongdoing] doctrine, has rejected it."); Devonshire v. United States, 691 A. 2d 165, 168 (D.C.) (noting "[a]ll federal and state courts that have addressed this issue, that we could find, have" accepted forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1247 , 117 S.Ct. 1859 , 137 L.Ed. 2d 1060 (1997). 2009See Edwards, supra, 830 N.E.2d at 166-67 (“[W]e are aware of no jurisdiction that, after considering the [forfeiture-by-wrongdoing] doctrine, has rejected it.”); Devonshire v. United States, 691 A2d 165, 168 (D.C.) (noting “[a]ll federal and state courts that have addressed this issue, that we could find, have” accepted forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1247 , 117 S.Ct. 1859 , 137 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1997). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
United States v. Sterling Roberts
green
1 sentence2026See, e.g., United States v. Houlihan, 92 F.3d 1271, 1279 (1st Cir. 1996) ("Moreover, it is sufficient in this regard to show that the evildoer was motivated in part by a desire to silence the witness; the intent to deprive the prosecution of testimony need not be the actor's sole motivation."); United States v. Roberts, 84 F.4th 659 , 667- 68 (6th Cir. 2023) (finding even if defendant had "multiple motives," his A-3454-22 21 "desire, at least in part, to prevent [a witness] from testifying" is "enough for the [forfeiture-by-wrongdoing] exception to apply," noting that "no circuit has held that | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Rose green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| United States v. Johnson green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Goldblatt v. Ebert green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Pequeno v. Schmidt green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Drayton v. Wells green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Strobel v. Strobel neutral | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Henry green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Ranger neutral | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.