Roviaro standard in Washington

9 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2020 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.

Followed or applied (0)

Case	Followed	Cited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (4)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Harris green wash · 1978 2 sentences 2017In 1978, this court observed that the proper way for the trial court to balance those interests was to "hold an in camera session at which the judge hears the informer's testimony and applies the Roviaro standard." State v. Harris, 91 Wn.2d 145, 150 , 588 P.2d 720 (1978). 2017In 1978, this court observed that the proper way for the trial court to balance those interests was to "hold an in camera session at which the judge hears the informer's testimony and applies the Roviaro standard." State v. Harris, 91 Wn.2d 145, 150 , 588 P.2d 720 (1978).	6	1994–2020
State v. Allen green washctapp · 1980 2 sentences 1986State v. Harris, supra at 150 ; CrR 4.7(h)(6). [1] However, an in camera hearing is only necessary where "`the defendant makes an initial showing that the confidential informant may have evidence that would be relevant to the defendant's innocence.'" State v. Allen, 27 Wn. 1986State v. Harris, supra at 150 ; CrR 4.7(h)(6). [1] However, an in camera hearing is only necessary where "`the defendant makes an initial showing that the confidential informant may have evidence that would be relevant to the defendant's innocence.'" State v. Allen, 27 Wn.	1	1986–1986
State v. Cleppe green wash · 1981 2 sentences 1986In such a case, the "preferred method for making this determination ... is for the court to hold an in camera session at which the judge hears the informer's testimony and applies the Roviaro standard."1 State v. Cleppe, 96 Wn.2d 373, 382 , 635 P.2d 435 (1981) (quoting Harris, at 150), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1206 (1982). 1986In such a case, the "preferred method for making this determination ... is for the court to hold an in camera session at which the judge hears the informer's testimony and applies the Roviaro standard."1 State v. Cleppe, 96 Wn.2d 373, 382 , 635 P.2d 435 (1981) (quoting Harris, at 150), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1206 (1982).	1	1986–1986
Roviaro v. United States green scotus · 1957 2 sentences 1978Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 , 77 S.Ct. 623 (1957). 1978Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 , 77 S.Ct. 623 (1957).	1	1978–1978

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.401 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

FL 13 (1977–2016) WA 9 (1978–2020) IL 6 (1985–2013) DC 3 (1993–2024) MA 3 (2003–2019) MO 2 (1979–1997) VA 2 (1993–1996) PA 2 (1972–1990) GA 2 (1977–1988) TX 2 (2004–2019)

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