firmly rooted exception in Maryland

9 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2016 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Maryland 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)

Case	Followed	Cited
Bailey v. Stategreen md · 1992 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016See Bailey, 327 Md. at 699 , 612 A.2d 288 (if evidence is 361 admissible under a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule or “has substantial guarantees of trustworthiness, the hearsay is admissible without the need to establish any additional good cause”). 2016*See Bailey, 327 Md. at 699 (if evidence is admissible under a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule or “has substantial guarantees of trustworthiness, the hearsay is admissible without the need to establish any additional good cause”).	2	2
Crawford v. Washingtongreen scotus · 2004 · cited in 3 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2004–2014 2 sentences 2014Prior to the United State Supreme Court’s opinion in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), the United States Supreme Court “took the view that the Confrontation Clause did not bar the admission of an 398 out-of-court statement that fell within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule.” Williams, supra, 567 U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. at 2232 (citing Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)). 2014Prior to the United State Supreme Court’s opinion in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), the United States Supreme Court “took the view that the Confrontation Clause did not bar the admission of an 398 out-of-court statement that fell within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule.” Williams, supra, 567 U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. at 2232 (citing Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)).	1	3
United States v. Inadigreen scotus · 1986 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988 2 sentences 1988Moreover, when one considers the “exceptions” that have been allowed—in particular the use of extra-judicial declarations based on a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule (Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980); United States v. Inadi, 475 U.S. 387 , 106 S.Ct. 1121 , 89 L.Ed.2d 390 282 (1986))—they nearly always involve a situation in which evidence is given without a face-to-face confrontation at trial. 1988Moreover, when one considers the “exceptions” that have been allowed—in particular the use of extra-judicial declarations based on a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule (Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980); United States v. Inadi, 475 U.S. 387 , 106 S.Ct. 1121 , 89 L.Ed.2d 390 282 (1986))—they nearly always involve a situation in which evidence is given without a face-to-face confrontation at trial.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
Ohio v. Roberts red scotus · 1980 2 sentences 2014Prior to the United State Supreme Court’s opinion in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), the United States Supreme Court “took the view that the Confrontation Clause did not bar the admission of an 398 out-of-court statement that fell within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule.” Williams, supra, 567 U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. at 2232 (citing Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)). 2014Prior to the United State Supreme Court’s opinion in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), the United States Supreme Court “took the view that the Confrontation Clause did not bar the admission of an 398 out-of-court statement that fell within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule.” Williams, supra, 567 U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. at 2232 (citing Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)).	3	1988–2014
Idaho v. Wright green scotus · 1990 2 sentences 2000In Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990), the Supreme Court delineated the proper analysis to determine whether hearsay statements that do not fall within a firmly rooted exception run afoul of the confrontation clause of the United States Constitution. 2000In Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990), the Supreme Court delineated the proper analysis to determine whether hearsay statements that do not fall within a firmly rooted exception run afoul of the confrontation clause of the United States Constitution.	2	1995–2000
Williams v. Illinois red scotus · 2012 1 sentence 2014Prior to the United State Supreme Court’s opinion in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), the United States Supreme Court “took the view that the Confrontation Clause did not bar the admission of an *398 out-of-court statement that fell within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule.” Williams, supra, 567 U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. at 2232 (citing Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)).	1	2014–2014
Lilly v. Virginia green scotus · 1999 2 sentences 2006Cf. Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 134 , 119 S.Ct. 1887 , 144 L.Ed.2d 117 (1999) (plurality opinion) (“[Accomplices’ confessions that inculpate a criminal defendant are not within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule”). 2006Cf. Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 134 , 119 S.Ct. 1887 , 144 L.Ed.2d 117 (1999) (plurality opinion) (“[Accomplices’ confessions that inculpate a criminal defendant are not within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule”).	1	2006–2006
White v. Illinois green scotus · 1992 2 sentences 2004White held that if a hearsay declaration satisfies the foundational requirements of a firmly rooted exception to the rule against hearsay, such as an excited utterance or statement in contemplation of medical treatment, the Confrontation Clause does not require that the hearsay statement be excluded unless (1) the declarant actually testifies, or (2) the proponent of the statement establishes that the declarant is unavailable to do so. 502 U.S. at 356-58 , 112 S.Ct. 736 . 2004White held that if a hearsay declaration satisfies the foundational requirements of a firmly rooted exception to the rule against hearsay, such as an excited utterance or statement in contemplation of medical treatment, the Confrontation Clause does not require that the hearsay statement be excluded unless (1) the declarant actually testifies, or (2) the proponent of the statement establishes that the declarant is unavailable to do so. 502 U.S. at 356-58 , 112 S.Ct. 736 .	1	2004–2004
Chapman v. State green md · 1993 2 sentences 1995Because the penal interest exception is not a "firmly rooted” exception to the hearsay rule, see Chapman v. State, 331 Md. 448 , 457 n. 3, 628 A.2d 676 (1993), in order for hearsay statements to be admitted under it there must be a “showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Simmons, 333 Md. at 559 , 636 A.2d 463 (quoting Chapman v. State, 331 Md. at 457 , 628 A.2d 676 ). 1995Because the penal interest exception is not a "firmly rooted” exception to the hearsay rule, see Chapman v. State, 331 Md. 448 , 457 n. 3, 628 A.2d 676 (1993), in order for hearsay statements to be admitted under it there must be a “showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Simmons, 333 Md. at 559 , 636 A.2d 463 (quoting Chapman v. State, 331 Md. at 457 , 628 A.2d 676 ).	1	1995–1995
Simmons v. State green md · 1994 2 sentences 1995Because the penal interest exception is not a "firmly rooted” exception to the hearsay rule, see Chapman v. State, 331 Md. 448 , 457 n. 3, 628 A.2d 676 (1993), in order for hearsay statements to be admitted under it there must be a “showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Simmons, 333 Md. at 559 , 636 A.2d 463 (quoting Chapman v. State, 331 Md. at 457 , 628 A.2d 676 ). 1995Because the penal interest exception is not a "firmly rooted” exception to the hearsay rule, see Chapman v. State, 331 Md. 448 , 457 n. 3, 628 A.2d 676 (1993), in order for hearsay statements to be admitted under it there must be a “showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Simmons, 333 Md. at 559 , 636 A.2d 463 (quoting Chapman v. State, 331 Md. at 457 , 628 A.2d 676 ).	1	1995–1995
Nance v. State green md · 1993 1 sentence 1995The dissenting opinion then concludes that if the hearsay is not a “firmly rooted” exception, it may only be deemed admissible if it has “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness,” quoting Nance v. State, 331 Md. at 560, 629 A.2d 633 .	1	1995–1995

Where else courts name it

TX 47 (1987–2017) OH 30 (1992–2012) CA 22 (1993–2023) VA 21 (1996–2020) IL 20 (1989–2024) NM 17 (1996–2017) WA 17 (1998–2009) CO 17 (1993–2026) PA 15 (1990–2026) NC 14 (1994–2009) LA 12 (1995–2017) AL 12 (1994–2026) FL 11 (1988–2019) MO 11 (1898–2007) MN 10 (1991–2006) AZ 10 (1990–2003) GA 9 (1995–2011) MD 9 (1988–2016) CT 8 (1992–2010) MA 7 (1994–2025) WY 7 (1997–2022) TN 7 (2002–2010) DE 7 (1998–2017) SC 7 (1995–2006) IN 7 (1994–2010) WI 6 (1982–2002) MI 6 (1991–2020) DC 6 (1996–2009) KY 6 (2001–2006) OK 5 (1996–2014) IA 4 (1994–2005) SD 4 (1986–2000) MT 3 (2001–2006) WV 3 (1999–2003) HI 3 (1992–2018) ME 2 (1995–2003) ID 2 (1999–2001) MS 2 (2000–2004) OR 2 (1993–2000) KS 2 (2001–2005) NE 2 (1993–2000) AK 2 (1994–1994)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check