Confrontation Clause standard (Georgia) · Go Syfert
← Georgia issues

Confrontation Clause standard in Georgia

9 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2023 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Georgia 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Hanifa v. Stategreen
ga · 1998 · cited in 7 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1999–2005
2 sentences

2005This Court held in Hanifa v. State, 269 Ga. 797, 803-804 ( 505 SE2d 731 ) (1998) that “[a] co-defendant’s statement meets the Confrontation Clause’s standard for admissibility when it does not refer to the existence of the defendant and is accompanied by instructions limiting its use to the case against the confessing co-defendant.

2005This Court held in Hanifa v. State, 269 Ga. 797, 803-804 ( 505 SE2d 731 ) (1998) that “[a] co-defendant’s statement meets the Confrontation Clause’s standard for admissibility when it does not refer to the existence of the defendant and is accompanied by instructions limiting its use to the case against the confessing co-defendant.

57
Colton v. Stategreen
ga · 2013 · cited in 2 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2021–2023
2 sentences

2023See Samia, 143 SCt at 2018; Richardson, 481 U.S. at 211 (II); Colton v. State, 292 Ga. 509, 511 (2) (739 SE2d 380) (2013) (“[a] co-defendant’s 30 statement meets the Confrontation Clause’s standard for admissi- bility when it does not refer to the existence of the defendant and is accompanied by instructions limiting its use to the case against the confessing co-defendant”) (citation and punctuation omitted; empha- sis added).

2023See Samia, 143 SCt at 2018; Richardson, 481 U.S. at 211 (II); Colton v. State, 292 Ga. 509, 511 (2) (739 SE2d 380) (2013) (“[a] co-defendant’s 30 statement meets the Confrontation Clause’s standard for admissi- bility when it does not refer to the existence of the defendant and is accompanied by instructions limiting its use to the case against the confessing co-defendant”) (citation and punctuation omitted; empha- sis added).

22
Richardson v. Marshgreen
scotus · 1987 · cited in 2 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2021–2023
2 sentences

2023See Samia, 143 SCt at 2018; Richardson, 481 U.S. at 211 (II); Colton v. State, 292 Ga. 509, 511 (2) (739 SE2d 380) (2013) (“[a] co-defendant’s 30 statement meets the Confrontation Clause’s standard for admissi- bility when it does not refer to the existence of the defendant and is accompanied by instructions limiting its use to the case against the confessing co-defendant”) (citation and punctuation omitted; empha- sis added).

2023See Samia, 143 SCt at 2018 (IV); Richardson, 481 U.S. at 211 (II); Colton v. State, 292 Ga. 509, 511 (2) ( 739 SE2d 380 ) (2013) (“[a] co-defend- ant’s statement meets the Confrontation Clause’s standard for ad- missibility when it does not refer to the existence of the defendant and is accompanied by instructions limiting its use to the case against the confessing co-defendant”) (citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis added).

22

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check