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 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lee v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1989See Lee v. United States, 432 U.S. 23 , 53 L.Ed.2d 80 , 97 S.Ct. 2141 (1977); Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377 , 43 L.Ed.2d 265 , 95 S.Ct. 1055 (1975). 1989See Lee v. United States, 432 U.S. 23 , 53 L.Ed.2d 80 , 97 S.Ct. 2141 (1977); Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377 , 43 L.Ed.2d 265 , 95 S.Ct. 1055 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2019The Clause does not bar admission of a statement so long as the declarant is present at trial to defend or explain it.” 541 U.S. at 59 n.9. 2009The otherwise inadmissible facts or data underlying an expert’s opinion are admissible for the limited purpose of explaining the basis for an expert’s opinion . . . .”); Crawford, 541 U.S. at 59 n.9 (“The Clause also does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.”). | 6 | 2006–2019 |
State v. Price
green
2 sentences2019In State v. Price, our Supreme Court held that admission of a child’s out-of-court statements did not violate the confrontation clause when the child testified at trial, even though she did not remember the events at issue or making the statements. 158 Wn.2d 630, 650 , 146 P.3d 1183 (2006). 2019“The Clause does not bar admission of a statement so long as the declarant is present at trial to defend or explain it.” Id. “‘[T]he Confrontation Clause guarantees only “an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.”’” State v. Price, 158 Wn.2d 630, 648 , 146 P.3d 1183 (2006) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554, 559 , 108 S. Ct. 838 , 98 L. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Price
green
2 sentences2019In State v. Price, our Supreme Court held that admission of a child’s out-of-court statements did not violate the confrontation clause when the child testified at trial, even though she did not remember the events at issue or making the statements. 158 Wn.2d 630, 650 , 146 P.3d 1183 (2006). 2019“The Clause does not bar admission of a statement so long as the declarant is present at trial to defend or explain it.” Id. “‘[T]he Confrontation Clause guarantees only “an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.”’” State v. Price, 158 Wn.2d 630, 648 , 146 P.3d 1183 (2006) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554, 559 , 108 S. Ct. 838 , 98 L. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Tennessee v. Street
green
2 sentences2007The State, however, calls our attention to a parenthetical statement found in footnote 9 of Crawford: “The Clause also does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 59 n.9 (citing Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414 , 105 S. Ct. 2078 , 85 L. 2007The State, however, calls our attention to a parenthetical statement found in footnote 9 of Crawford: “The Clause also does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 59 n.9 (citing Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414 , 105 S. Ct. 2078 , 85 L. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
United States v. Inadi
green
2 sentences2006Id. at 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 . 2006Id. at 59 n.9. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
California v. Green
red
1 sentence2019“The Clause does not bar admission of a statement so long as the declarant is present at trial to defend or explain it.” Id. “‘[T]he Confrontation Clause guarantees only “an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.”’” State v. Price, 158 Wn.2d 630, 648 , 146 P.3d 1183 (2006) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554, 559 , 108 S. Ct. 838 , 98 L. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
United States v. Owens
green
2 sentences2019“The Clause does not bar admission of a statement so long as the declarant is present at trial to defend or explain it.” Id. “‘[T]he Confrontation Clause guarantees only “an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.”’” State v. Price, 158 Wn.2d 630, 648 , 146 P.3d 1183 (2006) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554, 559 , 108 S. Ct. 838 , 98 L. 2019“The Clause does not bar admission of a statement so long as the declarant is present at trial to defend or explain it.” Id. “‘[T]he Confrontation Clause guarantees only “an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.”’” State v. Price, 158 Wn.2d 630, 648 , 146 P.3d 1183 (2006) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554, 559 , 108 S. Ct. 838 , 98 L. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Serfass v. United States
green
2 sentences1989See Lee v. United States, 432 U.S. 23 , 53 L.Ed.2d 80 , 97 S.Ct. 2141 (1977); Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377 , 43 L.Ed.2d 265 , 95 S.Ct. 1055 (1975). 1989See Lee v. United States, 432 U.S. 23 , 53 L.Ed.2d 80 , 97 S.Ct. 2141 (1977); Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377 , 43 L.Ed.2d 265 , 95 S.Ct. 1055 (1975). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.