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.
10 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2003 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona 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 sentences2003“Public policy overrides the [C]onfrontation [C]lause when the declarant is unavailable and his statement bears adequate ‘indicia of reliability.’” Id. 3 Reliability can be inferred when the statement falls within a “firmly rooted” hearsay exception or the statement “is supported by a ‘showing of particularized guarantees of trust-worthiness.’” Id. (quoting Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)). ¶ 36 The United States Supreme Court declared in Lilly that “accomplices’ confessions that inculpate a criminal defendant are not within a firmly rooted exception t 2003“Public policy overrides the [C]onfrontation [C]lause when the declarant is unavailable and his statement bears adequate ‘indicia of reliability.’” Id. 3 Reliability can be inferred when the statement falls within a “firmly rooted” hearsay exception or the statement “is supported by a ‘showing of particularized guarantees of trust-worthiness.’” Id. (quoting Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)). ¶ 36 The United States Supreme Court declared in Lilly that “accomplices’ confessions that inculpate a criminal defendant are not within a firmly rooted exception t | 1 | 4 |
Idaho v. Wrightgreen2 sentences1996A statement not falling within a firmly rooted exception must have “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 815 , 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3146 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990). 1996A statement not falling within a firmly rooted exception must have “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 815 , 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3146 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990). | 1 | 4 |
Lilly v. Virginiagreen2 sentences2003“Public policy overrides the [C]onfrontation [C]lause when the declarant is unavailable and his statement bears adequate ‘indicia of reliability.’” Id. 3 Reliability can be inferred when the statement falls within a “firmly rooted” hearsay exception or the statement “is supported by a ‘showing of particularized guarantees of trust-worthiness.’” Id. (quoting Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)). ¶ 36 The United States Supreme Court declared in Lilly that “accomplices’ confessions that inculpate a criminal defendant are not within a firmly rooted exception t 2003A. “Firmly Rooted” Hearsay Exceptions If 17 Bronson relies on Lilly, 527 U.S. 116 , 119 S.Ct. 1887 , to argue that a statement against penal interest made by an accomplice is not a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 3 |
Longfellow v. Stategreen1 sentence2003Longfellow v. State, 688 A.2d 1370, 1373 (Del.1997). | 1 | 1 |
Williamson v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2003See, e.g., Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594, 599-600 , 114 S.Ct. 2431 , 129 L.Ed.2d 476 (1994); Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 540-41 , 106 S.Ct. 2056 , 90 L.Ed.2d 514 (1986); Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 124-25 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968); Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 419-20 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 , 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965). ¶ 34 Consequently, because Rule 806 is not a firmly rooted exception, the trial court was obligated to find that the statement at issue bore sufficient “indicia of reliability” before allowing the statement to be used. 2003See, e.g., Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594, 599-600 , 114 S.Ct. 2431 , 129 L.Ed.2d 476 (1994); Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 540-41 , 106 S.Ct. 2056 , 90 L.Ed.2d 514 (1986); Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 124-25 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968); Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 419-20 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 , 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965). ¶ 34 Consequently, because Rule 806 is not a firmly rooted exception, the trial court was obligated to find that the statement at issue bore sufficient “indicia of reliability” before allowing the statement to be used. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lee v. Illinois
green
2 sentences2003See, e.g., Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594, 599-600 , 114 S.Ct. 2431 , 129 L.Ed.2d 476 (1994); Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 540-41 , 106 S.Ct. 2056 , 90 L.Ed.2d 514 (1986); Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 124-25 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968); Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 419-20 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 , 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965). ¶ 34 Consequently, because Rule 806 is not a firmly rooted exception, the trial court was obligated to find that the statement at issue bore sufficient “indicia of reliability” before allowing the statement to be used. 2003See, e.g., Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594, 599-600 , 114 S.Ct. 2431 , 129 L.Ed.2d 476 (1994); Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 540-41 , 106 S.Ct. 2056 , 90 L.Ed.2d 514 (1986); Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 124-25 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968); Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 419-20 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 , 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965). ¶ 34 Consequently, because Rule 806 is not a firmly rooted exception, the trial court was obligated to find that the statement at issue bore sufficient “indicia of reliability” before allowing the statement to be used. | 2 | 2003–2003 |
White v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1993When hearsay testimony comes “within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule, the Confrontation Clause is satisfied.” White v. Illinois, — U.S.—, —, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992). 1993When hearsay testimony comes “within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule, the Confrontation Clause is satisfied.” White v. Illinois, — U.S.—, —, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992). | 2 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Ruelas
green
2 sentences2003“Public policy overrides the [C]onfrontation [C]lause when the declarant is unavailable and his statement bears adequate ‘indicia of reliability.’” Id. 3 Reliability can be inferred when the statement falls within a “firmly rooted” hearsay exception or the statement “is supported by a ‘showing of particularized guarantees of trust-worthiness.’” Id. (quoting Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)). ¶ 36 The United States Supreme Court declared in Lilly that “accomplices’ confessions that inculpate a criminal defendant are not within a firmly rooted exception t 2003“Public policy overrides the [C]onfrontation [C]lause when the declarant is unavailable and his statement bears adequate ‘indicia of reliability.’” Id. 3 Reliability can be inferred when the statement falls within a “firmly rooted” hearsay exception or the statement “is supported by a ‘showing of particularized guarantees of trust-worthiness.’” Id. (quoting Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)). ¶ 36 The United States Supreme Court declared in Lilly that “accomplices’ confessions that inculpate a criminal defendant are not within a firmly rooted exception t | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Bruton v. United States
green
2 sentences2003See, e.g., Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594, 599-600 , 114 S.Ct. 2431 , 129 L.Ed.2d 476 (1994); Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 540-41 , 106 S.Ct. 2056 , 90 L.Ed.2d 514 (1986); Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 124-25 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968); Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 419-20 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 , 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965). ¶ 34 Consequently, because Rule 806 is not a firmly rooted exception, the trial court was obligated to find that the statement at issue bore sufficient “indicia of reliability” before allowing the statement to be used. 2003See, e.g., Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594, 599-600 , 114 S.Ct. 2431 , 129 L.Ed.2d 476 (1994); Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 540-41 , 106 S.Ct. 2056 , 90 L.Ed.2d 514 (1986); Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 124-25 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968); Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 419-20 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 , 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965). ¶ 34 Consequently, because Rule 806 is not a firmly rooted exception, the trial court was obligated to find that the statement at issue bore sufficient “indicia of reliability” before allowing the statement to be used. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Douglas v. Alabama
green
2 sentences2003See, e.g., Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594, 599-600 , 114 S.Ct. 2431 , 129 L.Ed.2d 476 (1994); Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 540-41 , 106 S.Ct. 2056 , 90 L.Ed.2d 514 (1986); Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 124-25 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968); Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 419-20 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 , 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965). ¶ 34 Consequently, because Rule 806 is not a firmly rooted exception, the trial court was obligated to find that the statement at issue bore sufficient “indicia of reliability” before allowing the statement to be used. 2003See, e.g., Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594, 599-600 , 114 S.Ct. 2431 , 129 L.Ed.2d 476 (1994); Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 540-41 , 106 S.Ct. 2056 , 90 L.Ed.2d 514 (1986); Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 124-25 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968); Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 419-20 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 , 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965). ¶ 34 Consequently, because Rule 806 is not a firmly rooted exception, the trial court was obligated to find that the statement at issue bore sufficient “indicia of reliability” before allowing the statement to be used. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
J. Q. v. D. R. L.
green
1 sentence1991Id. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Jeffers
green
2 sentences1990Third, as excited utterances the statements fall within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule, Yslas, 139 Ariz. at 65, 676 P.2d at 1123; Jeffers, 135 Ariz. at 422 , 661 P.2d at 1123 ; bearing “all the indicia of reliability which has led to the creation of a narrow exception to the rule against hearsay.” Carr, 154 Ariz. at 471-72 , 743 P.2d at 1389-90 . 1990Third, as excited utterances the statements fall within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule, Yslas, 139 Ariz. at 65, 676 P.2d at 1123; Jeffers, 135 Ariz. at 422 , 661 P.2d at 1123 ; bearing “all the indicia of reliability which has led to the creation of a narrow exception to the rule against hearsay.” Carr, 154 Ariz. at 471-72 , 743 P.2d at 1389-90 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Carr
green
2 sentences1990Third, as excited utterances the statements fall within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule, Yslas, 139 Ariz. at 65, 676 P.2d at 1123; Jeffers, 135 Ariz. at 422 , 661 P.2d at 1123 ; bearing “all the indicia of reliability which has led to the creation of a narrow exception to the rule against hearsay.” Carr, 154 Ariz. at 471-72 , 743 P.2d at 1389-90 . 1990Third, as excited utterances the statements fall within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule, Yslas, 139 Ariz. at 65, 676 P.2d at 1123; Jeffers, 135 Ariz. at 422 , 661 P.2d at 1123 ; bearing “all the indicia of reliability which has led to the creation of a narrow exception to the rule against hearsay.” Carr, 154 Ariz. at 471-72 , 743 P.2d at 1389-90 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.