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.
9 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pennsylvania v. Ritchiegreen2 sentences2025“The right of a defendant to confront adverse witnesses is guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments and includes an opportunity for effective cross-examination.” People v. Herrera, 87 P.3d 240, 253 (Colo. App. 2003). ¶ 79 “[T]he right to confrontation is a trial right; it is not ‘a constitutionally compelled rule of pretrial discovery.’” Spykstra, 234 P.3d at 670 (quoting Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 52 (1987) (plurality opinion)). 2016However, "the right to confrontation is a trial right; it is not ‘a constitutionally compelled rule of pretrial discovery.’" Spykstra, 234 P.3d at 670 (quoting Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 52 (plurality opinion)). | 4 | 7 |
People v. SPYKSTRAgreen2 sentences2025“The right of a defendant to confront adverse witnesses is guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments and includes an opportunity for effective cross-examination.” People v. Herrera, 87 P.3d 240, 253 (Colo. App. 2003). ¶ 79 “[T]he right to confrontation is a trial right; it is not ‘a constitutionally compelled rule of pretrial discovery.’” Spykstra, 234 P.3d at 670 (quoting Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 52 (1987) (plurality opinion)). 2019However, a defendant’s confrontation right is a trial right; “it is not ‘a constitutionally compelled rule of pretrial discovery.’” People v. Spykstra, 234 P.3d 662, 670 (Colo. 2010) (citation omitted). | 2 | 6 |
Chambers v. Mississippigreen2 sentences2016For this reason, the court of appeals' reliance on Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973), was misplaced. 2016For this reason, the court of appeals’ reliance on Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 (1973), was misplaced. | 2 | 3 |
Dill v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2025“Accordingly, in guaranteeing an opportunity for effective cross-examination, the Confrontation Clause does not guarantee ‘access to every possible source of information relevant to cross-examination.’” Id. (quoting Dill v. People, 927 P.2d 1315, 1322 (Colo. 1996)). 34 ¶ 80 McKain relies on People v. Tresco, 2019 COA 61 , 457 P.3d 112 , to support his argument that the court violated his Confrontation Clause rights by allowing Graber to testify about her hospitalization and injuries without requiring the prosecution to produce the medical records. 2010Accordingly, in guaranteeing an opportunity for effective cross-examination, the Confrontation Clause does not guarantee "access to every possible source of information relevant to cross-examination." Dill, 927 P.2d at 1322 (citing Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 53-54 , 107 S.Ct. 989 , and *671 Dist. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Herreragreen1 sentence2025“The right of a defendant to confront adverse witnesses is guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments and includes an opportunity for effective cross-examination.” People v. Herrera, 87 P.3d 240, 253 (Colo. App. 2003). ¶ 79 “[T]he right to confrontation is a trial right; it is not ‘a constitutionally compelled rule of pretrial discovery.’” Spykstra, 234 P.3d at 670 (quoting Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 52 (1987) (plurality opinion)). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Baltazargreen2 sentences2011See People v. Baltazar, 241 P.3d 941, 943-44 (Colo.2010); People v. Spykstra, 234 P.3d 662, 670 (Colo.2010). 2011See People v. Baltazar, 241 P.3d 941, 943-44 (Colo.2010); People v. Spykstra, 234 P.3d 662, 670 (Colo.2010). | 1 | 1 |
McCray v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences2005See McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 311-13 , 87 S.Ct. 1056, 1062-64 , 18 L.Ed.2d 62 (1967)(no Confrontation Clause violation where defendant was denied the chance to discover an informant’s name at pretrial hearing); see also Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 52 , 54 n. 10, 107 S.Ct. 989, 999 , 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987)(plurality opinion)(noting that to accept a broader interpretation would transform the Confrontation Clause into a constitutionally compelled rule of discovery and further recognizing the Court “normally has refused to find a Sixth Amendment violation when the asserted interfer 2005See McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 311-13 , 87 S.Ct. 1056, 1062-64 , 18 L.Ed.2d 62 (1967)(no Confrontation Clause violation where defendant was denied the chance to discover an informant’s name at pretrial hearing); see also Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 52 , 54 n. 10, 107 S.Ct. 989, 999 , 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987)(plurality opinion)(noting that to accept a broader interpretation would transform the Confrontation Clause into a constitutionally compelled rule of discovery and further recognizing the Court “normally has refused to find a Sixth Amendment violation when the asserted interfer | 1 | 1 |
Barber v. Pagegreen2 sentences2005See McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 311-13 , 87 S.Ct. 1056, 1062-64 , 18 L.Ed.2d 62 (1967)(no Confrontation Clause violation where defendant was denied the chance to discover an informant’s name at pretrial hearing); see also Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 52 , 54 n. 10, 107 S.Ct. 989, 999 , 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987)(plurality opinion)(noting that to accept a broader interpretation would transform the Confrontation Clause into a constitutionally compelled rule of discovery and further recognizing the Court “normally has refused to find a Sixth Amendment violation when the asserted interfer 2005See McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 311-13 , 87 S.Ct. 1056, 1062-64 , 18 L.Ed.2d 62 (1967)(no Confrontation Clause violation where defendant was denied the chance to discover an informant’s name at pretrial hearing); see also Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 52 , 54 n. 10, 107 S.Ct. 989, 999 , 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987)(plurality opinion)(noting that to accept a broader interpretation would transform the Confrontation Clause into a constitutionally compelled rule of discovery and further recognizing the Court “normally has refused to find a Sixth Amendment violation when the asserted interfer | 1 | 1 |
California v. Greenred2 sentences2005See McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 311-13 , 87 S.Ct. 1056, 1062-64 , 18 L.Ed.2d 62 (1967)(no Confrontation Clause violation where defendant was denied the chance to discover an informant’s name at pretrial hearing); see also Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 52 , 54 n. 10, 107 S.Ct. 989, 999 , 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987)(plurality opinion)(noting that to accept a broader interpretation would transform the Confrontation Clause into a constitutionally compelled rule of discovery and further recognizing the Court “normally has refused to find a Sixth Amendment violation when the asserted interfer 2005See McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 311-13 , 87 S.Ct. 1056, 1062-64 , 18 L.Ed.2d 62 (1967)(no Confrontation Clause violation where defendant was denied the chance to discover an informant’s name at pretrial hearing); see also Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 52 , 54 n. 10, 107 S.Ct. 989, 999 , 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987)(plurality opinion)(noting that to accept a broader interpretation would transform the Confrontation Clause into a constitutionally compelled rule of discovery and further recognizing the Court “normally has refused to find a Sixth Amendment violation when the asserted interfer | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
v. Tresco
green
1 sentence2025“Accordingly, in guaranteeing an opportunity for effective cross-examination, the Confrontation Clause does not guarantee ‘access to every possible source of information relevant to cross-examination.’” Id. (quoting Dill v. People, 927 P.2d 1315, 1322 (Colo. 1996)). 34 ¶ 80 McKain relies on People v. Tresco, 2019 COA 61 , 457 P.3d 112 , to support his argument that the court violated his Confrontation Clause rights by allowing Graber to testify about her hospitalization and injuries without requiring the prosecution to produce the medical records. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Weatherford v. Bursey
green
2 sentences2010As we noted in Spykstra, the Supreme Court has found there to be no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case, Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 , *944 559, 97 S.Ct. 837 , 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977), and more specifically, that the right to confrontation is a trial right-not a constitutionally compelled rule of pre-trial discovery. 2010As we noted in Spykstra, the Supreme Court has found there to be no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case, Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 , *944 559, 97 S.Ct. 837 , 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977), and more specifically, that the right to confrontation is a trial right-not a constitutionally compelled rule of pre-trial discovery. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.