11 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wisconsin 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 |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2011Giles , 554 U.S. 353, 358 (2008) ("We held in Crawford that the Confrontation Clause is 'most naturally read as a reference to the right of confrontation at common law, admitting only those exceptions established at the time of the founding.'") The Crawford analysis noted that the Sixth Amendment was ratified in 1791, 541 U.S. 36, 46 , and stated, "As the English authorities [cited] above reveal, the common law in 1791 conditioned admissibility of an absent witness's examination on unavailability and a prior opportunity to cross-examine. 2011Giles , 554 U.S. 353, 358 (2008) ("We held in Crawford that the Confrontation Clause is 'most naturally read as a reference to the right of confrontation at common law, admitting only those exceptions established at the time of the founding.'") The Crawford analysis noted that the Sixth Amendment was ratified in 1791, 541 U.S. 36, 46 , and stated, "As the English authorities [cited] above reveal, the common law in 1791 conditioned admissibility of an absent witness's examination on unavailability and a prior opportunity to cross-examine. | 2 | 6 |
State v. Wilcoxongreen2 sentences2017This analysis overlooks the complexities in Confrontation Clause jurisprudence. ¶87 More persuasive is the analysis presented in the dissent of State v. Wilcoxon, 373 P.3d 224 (2016) (Madsen, C.J., dissenting). 2017This analysis overlooks the complexities in Confrontation Clause jurisprudence. ¶87 More persuasive is the analysis presented in the dissent of State v. Wilcoxon, 373 P.3d 224, 232 (2016) (Madsen, C.J., dissenting). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Wickstromgreen2 sentences2022See State v. Wickstrom, 118 Wis. 2d 339, 349 , 348 N.W.2d 183 (Ct. App. 1984) (“Notice to the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusations is the key factor in determining whether an amended charging document has prejudiced a defendant.”). ¶12 Moreover, Crawford’s defense at trial was that he was not present or involved in the shooting. 2022See State v. Wickstrom, 118 Wis. 2d 339, 349 , 348 N.W.2d 183 (Ct. App. 1984) (“Notice to the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusations is the key factor in determining whether an amended charging document has prejudiced a defendant.”). ¶12 Moreover, Crawford’s defense at trial was that he was not present or involved in the shooting. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bartongreen2 sentences2015Barton, 289 Wis. 2d 206, ¶¶9, 20 . 2015Barton, 289 Wis. 2d 206, ¶¶9, 20 . | 1 | 1 |
Giles v. Californiagreen2 sentences2011Giles , 554 U.S. 353, 358 (2008) ("We held in Crawford that the Confrontation Clause is 'most naturally read as a reference to the right of confrontation at common law, admitting only those exceptions established at the time of the founding.'") The Crawford analysis noted that the Sixth Amendment was ratified in 1791, 541 U.S. 36, 46 , and stated, "As the English authorities [cited] above reveal, the common law in 1791 conditioned admissibility of an absent witness's examination on unavailability and a prior opportunity to cross-examine. 2011Giles , 554 U.S. 353, 358 (2008) ("We held in Crawford that the Confrontation Clause is 'most naturally read as a reference to the right of confrontation at common law, admitting only those exceptions established at the time of the founding.'") The Crawford analysis noted that the Sixth Amendment was ratified in 1791, 541 U.S. 36, 46 , and stated, "As the English authorities [cited] above reveal, the common law in 1791 conditioned admissibility of an absent witness's examination on unavailability and a prior opportunity to cross-examine. | 1 | 1 |
Neder v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2005There, the United States Supreme Court held that "before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 24.1 am satisfied that the alternative wording in Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 2-3 (1999), State v. Weed, 2003 WI 85, ¶ 29 , 263 Wis. 2d 434 , 666 N.W.2d 485 , and State v. Harvey, 2002 WI 93, ¶ 48, n. 14 , 254 Wis. 2d 442 , 647 N.W.2d 189 , sets forth the applicable test. 2005There, the United States Supreme Court held that "before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 24.1 am satisfied that the alternative wording in Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 2-3 (1999), State v. Weed, 2003 WI 85, ¶ 29 , 263 Wis. 2d 434 , 666 N.W.2d 485 , and State v. Harvey, 2002 WI 93, ¶ 48, n. 14 , 254 Wis. 2d 442 , 647 N.W.2d 189 , sets forth the applicable test. | 1 | 1 |
Chapman v. Californiared2 sentences2005The majority relies on the harmless error test outlined in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), in order to hold that the Crawford violation was not harmless. 2005The majority relies on the harmless error test outlined in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), in order to hold that the Crawford violation was not harmless. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. James
green
1 sentence2021Rather, the court was tasked with determining whether the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it refused to show a child's video-recording before the child testified based on the circuit court's concern that if the child subsequently refused to say anything on the stand a Crawford violation would occur thereby requiring the court to declare a mistrial.15 James, 285 Wis. 2d 783, ¶4 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Ohio v. Roberts
red
2 sentences2006Rather, the analysis then turns to whether under pre- Crawford analysis, the dual test in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), of unavailability and whether there are sufficient "`indicia of reliability'" attached to the declarations is satisfied so as to make their receipt into evidence permissible under the confrontation clause. 2006Rather, the analysis then turns to whether under pre- Crawford analysis, the dual test in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), of unavailability and whether there are sufficient "`indicia of reliability'" attached to the declarations is satisfied so as to make their receipt into evidence permissible under the confrontation clause. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Manuel
green
2 sentences2006Manuel, 2005 WI 75, ¶¶ 60-61 , 281 Wis.2d at 586-587 , 697 N.W.2d at 826-827 ; Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 (states may use the Roberts approach for non-testimonial hearsay). 2006Manuel, 2005 WI 75, ¶¶ 60-61 , 281 Wis.2d at 586-587 , 697 N.W.2d at 826-827 ; Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 (states may use the Roberts approach for non-testimonial hearsay). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Weed
green
2 sentences2005There, the United States Supreme Court held that "before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 24.1 am satisfied that the alternative wording in Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 2-3 (1999), State v. Weed, 2003 WI 85, ¶ 29 , 263 Wis. 2d 434 , 666 N.W.2d 485 , and State v. Harvey, 2002 WI 93, ¶ 48, n. 14 , 254 Wis. 2d 442 , 647 N.W.2d 189 , sets forth the applicable test. 2005There, the United States Supreme Court held that "before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 24.1 am satisfied that the alternative wording in Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 2-3 (1999), State v. Weed, 2003 WI 85, ¶ 29 , 263 Wis. 2d 434 , 666 N.W.2d 485 , and State v. Harvey, 2002 WI 93, ¶ 48, n. 14 , 254 Wis. 2d 442 , 647 N.W.2d 189 , sets forth the applicable test. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Harvey
green
2 sentences2005There, the United States Supreme Court held that "before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 24.1 am satisfied that the alternative wording in Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 2-3 (1999), State v. Weed, 2003 WI 85, ¶ 29 , 263 Wis. 2d 434 , 666 N.W.2d 485 , and State v. Harvey, 2002 WI 93, ¶ 48, n. 14 , 254 Wis. 2d 442 , 647 N.W.2d 189 , sets forth the applicable test. 2005There, the United States Supreme Court held that "before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 24.1 am satisfied that the alternative wording in Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 2-3 (1999), State v. Weed, 2003 WI 85, ¶ 29 , 263 Wis. 2d 434 , 666 N.W.2d 485 , and State v. Harvey, 2002 WI 93, ¶ 48, n. 14 , 254 Wis. 2d 442 , 647 N.W.2d 189 , sets forth the applicable test. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.