9 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Figueroa-Cartagenagreen2 sentences2014United States v. Figueroa-Cartagena, 612 F.3d 69,85 (1st Cir. 2010). 2014United States v. Figueroa-Cartagena, 612 F.3d 69, 85 (1st Cir. 2010). | 2 | 2 |
Richard Lee Mason v. M. Yarboroughgreen2 sentences2007Mason, 447 F.3d at 698 (Wallace, J., concurring) (alteration in original). ¶80 In Bruton , the Supreme Court held that a defendant, Bruton, was deprived of his confrontation rights under the Sixth Amendment when he was “powerfully incriminat[ed]” by a pretrial statement of his codefendant, Evans, who did not take the stand at trial. 2007Mason, 447 F.3d at 698 (Wallace, J., concurring) (alteration in original). ¶83 In Gray , the State introduced a redacted confession of Bell, the codefendant, into evidence at trial. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Gitchelgreen1 sentence1987See State v. Gitchel, 41 Wn. | 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 sentences2007And in particular, where a witness is unavailable and out of court "testimonial evidence is at issue, . . . the Sixth Amendment demands what the common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination." Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . ¶ 79 Bruton and its progeny, Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 , 107 S.Ct. 1702 , 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987), and Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 , 118 S.Ct. 1151 , 140 L.Ed.2d 294 (1998), also address whether an admission admitted against one defendant is deemed to be a "witness[] against" a co-defendant, thus invoking the protect 2007And in particular, where a witness is unavailable and out of court "testimonial evidence is at issue, . . . the Sixth Amendment demands what the common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination." Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . ¶ 79 Bruton and its progeny, Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 , 107 S.Ct. 1702 , 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987), and Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 , 118 S.Ct. 1151 , 140 L.Ed.2d 294 (1998), also address whether an admission admitted against one defendant is deemed to be a "witness[] against" a co-defendant, thus invoking the protect | 3 | 2005–2007 |
In Re Hegney
green
2 sentences2014App. 511,546-47 , 158 P.3d 1193 (2007) (where codefendant's statements did not refer to Hegney by name or otherwise, did not contain blanks or obvious deletions, and were accompanied by a limiting instruction, codefendant was not a witness against Hegney and the protections of the confrontation clause were not at issue). 2014App. 511, 546-47 , 158 P.3d 1193 (2007) (where codefendant’s statements did not refer to Hegney by name or otherwise, did not contain blanks or obvious deletions, and were accompanied by a limiting instruction, codefendant was not a witness against Hegney and the protections of the confrontation clause were not at issue). ¶80 Ricardo DeLeon replies that in this case the jury was not admonished not to use a defendant’s Gang Documentation Form in any way against his codefendants at the time the evidence was admitted, as was done in Richardson-, and in his case, his brother’s and Mr. Robledo’s Ga | 2 | 2014–2014 |
United States v. Mejia
green
2 sentences2010In ruling that Miller had personal knowledge of McDaniel’s nickname, the trial court apparently understood Miller’s testimony to fall within the ambit of ER 705 — that is, expert testimony regarding inferences made in reliance on information learned during an investigation. ¶30 The Second Circuit recently addressed this issue in United States v. Mejia, 545 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2008). 2010In ruling that Miller had personal knowledge of McDaniel's nickname, the trial court apparently understood Miller's testimony to fall within the ambit of ER 705 that is, expert testimony regarding inferences made in reliance *256 on information learned during an investigation. ¶ 30 The Second Circuit recently addressed this issue in United States v. Mejia, 545 F.3d 179 (2d Cir.2008). | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Gray v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2007And in particular, where a witness is unavailable and out of court "testimonial evidence is at issue, . . . the Sixth Amendment demands what the common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination." Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . ¶ 79 Bruton and its progeny, Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 , 107 S.Ct. 1702 , 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987), and Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 , 118 S.Ct. 1151 , 140 L.Ed.2d 294 (1998), also address whether an admission admitted against one defendant is deemed to be a "witness[] against" a co-defendant, thus invoking the protect 2007And in particular, where a witness is unavailable and out of court "testimonial evidence is at issue, . . . the Sixth Amendment demands what the common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination." Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . ¶ 79 Bruton and its progeny, Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 , 107 S.Ct. 1702 , 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987), and Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 , 118 S.Ct. 1151 , 140 L.Ed.2d 294 (1998), also address whether an admission admitted against one defendant is deemed to be a "witness[] against" a co-defendant, thus invoking the protect | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Richardson v. Marsh
green
2 sentences2007And in particular, where a witness is unavailable and out of court "testimonial evidence is at issue, . . . the Sixth Amendment demands what the common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination." Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . ¶ 79 Bruton and its progeny, Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 , 107 S.Ct. 1702 , 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987), and Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 , 118 S.Ct. 1151 , 140 L.Ed.2d 294 (1998), also address whether an admission admitted against one defendant is deemed to be a "witness[] against" a co-defendant, thus invoking the protect 2007And in particular, where a witness is unavailable and out of court "testimonial evidence is at issue, . . . the Sixth Amendment demands what the common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination." Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . ¶ 79 Bruton and its progeny, Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 , 107 S.Ct. 1702 , 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987), and Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 , 118 S.Ct. 1151 , 140 L.Ed.2d 294 (1998), also address whether an admission admitted against one defendant is deemed to be a "witness[] against" a co-defendant, thus invoking the protect | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.