12 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
White v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences2002In White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 358 , 112 S.Ct. 736, 743 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992), the Court held that the confrontation clause is satisfied if hearsay "has sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness to come within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule.” State v. Welch, 99-1283 (La.4/11/2000), 760 So.2d 317 . 2002In White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 358 , 112 S.Ct. 736, 743 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992), the Court held that the confrontation clause is satisfied if hearsay "has sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness to come within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule.” State v. Welch, 99-1283 (La.4/11/2000), 760 So.2d 317 . | 3 | 6 |
Commonwealth v. Wheltongreen2 sentences2001See White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 358 , 112 S.Ct. 736, 743 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (Confrontation Clause is satisfied if hearsay "has sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness to come within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule."); see also Commonwealth v. Whelton, 428 Mass. 24 , 696 N.E.2d 540, 543-46 (1998); People v. Hendrickson, 459 Mich. 229 , 586 N.W.2d 906, 908-910 (1998); Oldman v. State, 998 P.2d 957, 960 (Wyo.2000). 2001See White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 358 , 112 S.Ct. 736, 743 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (Confrontation Clause is satisfied if hearsay "has sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness to come within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule."); see also Commonwealth v. Whelton, 428 Mass. 24 , 696 N.E.2d 540, 543-46 (1998); People v. Hendrickson, 459 Mich. 229 , 586 N.W.2d 906, 908-910 (1998); Oldman v. State, 998 P.2d 957, 960 (Wyo.2000). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hendricksongreen2 sentences2001See White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 358 , 112 S.Ct. 736, 743 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (Confrontation Clause is satisfied if hearsay "has sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness to come within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule."); see also Commonwealth v. Whelton, 428 Mass. 24 , 696 N.E.2d 540, 543-46 (1998); People v. Hendrickson, 459 Mich. 229 , 586 N.W.2d 906, 908-910 (1998); Oldman v. State, 998 P.2d 957, 960 (Wyo.2000). 2001See White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 358 , 112 S.Ct. 736, 743 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (Confrontation Clause is satisfied if hearsay "has sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness to come within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule."); see also Commonwealth v. Whelton, 428 Mass. 24 , 696 N.E.2d 540, 543-46 (1998); People v. Hendrickson, 459 Mich. 229 , 586 N.W.2d 906, 908-910 (1998); Oldman v. State, 998 P.2d 957, 960 (Wyo.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Oldman v. Stategreen1 sentence2001See White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 358 , 112 S.Ct. 736, 743 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (Confrontation Clause is satisfied if hearsay "has sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness to come within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule."); see also Commonwealth v. Whelton, 428 Mass. 24 , 696 N.E.2d 540, 543-46 (1998); People v. Hendrickson, 459 Mich. 229 , 586 N.W.2d 906, 908-910 (1998); Oldman v. State, 998 P.2d 957, 960 (Wyo.2000). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ohio v. Roberts
red
2 sentences2004At the time of the trial in this case, Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), provided that the Confrontation Clause was not violated if the evidence at issue fell within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule or if there were particular indicia of reliability. 2004At the time of the trial in this case, Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), provided that the Confrontation Clause was not violated if the evidence at issue fell within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule or if there were particular indicia of reliability. | 4 | 2002–2017 |
Mattox v. United States
green
2 sentences2017Ohio v. Roberts , 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980) ; Mattox v. United States , 156 U.S. 237 , 15 S.Ct. 337 , 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895). 2017Ohio v. Roberts , 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980) ; Mattox v. United States , 156 U.S. 237 , 15 S.Ct. 337 , 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895). | 3 | 2002–2017 |
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2014This Court has discussed testimonial statements and provided the following analysis: [A]t a minimum testimonial statements include: “prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial; and police interrogations.” State v. Leonard, 05-42, p. 19 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/26/05), 910 So.2d 977, 989 , citing Crawford, supra, 124 S.Ct. at 1374 . 2004Recently, in Crawford v. Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), the United States Supreme Court abrogated its decision in Roberts , indicating that reliability alone was insufficient to satisfy the Confrontation Clause. [2] The court held the following: Where testimonial evidence is at issue ... the Sixth Amendment demands what common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination. | 2 | 2004–2014 |
State v. Leonard
green
1 sentence2014This Court has discussed testimonial statements and provided the following analysis: [A]t a minimum testimonial statements include: “prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial; and police interrogations.” State v. Leonard, 05-42, p. 19 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/26/05), 910 So.2d 977, 989 , citing Crawford, supra, 124 S.Ct. at 1374 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Ball
green
1 sentence2008State v. Ball, supra . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Marston
green
1 sentence2007State v. Marston, XXXX-XXXX (La.3/16/01), 780 So.2d 1058 ; White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 358 , 112 S.Ct. 736, 743 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992). [4] LSA-C.E. art. 803 provides in pertinent part: The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: * * * (5) Recorded recollection. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Welch
green
1 sentence2002In White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 358 , 112 S.Ct. 736, 743 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992), the Court held that the confrontation clause is satisfied if hearsay "has sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness to come within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule.” State v. Welch, 99-1283 (La.4/11/2000), 760 So.2d 317 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.