8 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado 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 |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2012See Rojas, 181 P.3d at 1219 ("[Wlhere the child testifies at trial, Crawford ... does not modify the analysis [under the Child Hearsay Statute] or warrant treating the issue as one implicating the defendant's confrontation rights."); People v. Whitman, 205 P.3d 371, 381 (Colo.App.2007)("Because the [child witnesses] were available and testified, the Sixth Amendment confrontation issue raised by Crawford does not apply here." (discussing the Child Hearsay Statute)); see also Crawford, 541 U.S. at 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 ("The Clause does not bar admission of a statement so long as the declarant 2012See Rojas, 181 P.3d at 1219 ("[Wlhere the child testifies at trial, Crawford ... does not modify the analysis [under the Child Hearsay Statute] or warrant treating the issue as one implicating the defendant's confrontation rights."); People v. Whitman, 205 P.3d 371, 381 (Colo.App.2007)("Because the [child witnesses] were available and testified, the Sixth Amendment confrontation issue raised by Crawford does not apply here." (discussing the Child Hearsay Statute)); see also Crawford, 541 U.S. at 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 ("The Clause does not bar admission of a statement so long as the declarant | 2 | 3 |
People v. Argomaniz-Ramirezgreen2 sentences2012See Rojas, 181 P.3d at 1219 ("[Wlhere the child testifies at trial, Crawford ... does not modify the analysis [under the Child Hearsay Statute] or warrant treating the issue as one implicating the defendant's confrontation rights."); People v. Whitman, 205 P.3d 371, 381 (Colo.App.2007)("Because the [child witnesses] were available and testified, the Sixth Amendment confrontation issue raised by Crawford does not apply here." (discussing the Child Hearsay Statute)); see also Crawford, 541 U.S. at 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 ("The Clause does not bar admission of a statement so long as the declarant 2007The Clause does not bar admission of a statement so long as the declarant is present at trial to defend or explain it." (citations omitted)); People v. Argomaniz-Ramirez, 102 P.3d 1015, 1018 (Colo.2004)(" Crawford does not affect the analysis for admission of out-of-court statements where the declarant testifies at trial."). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Whitmangreen1 sentence2012See Rojas, 181 P.3d at 1219 ("[Wlhere the child testifies at trial, Crawford ... does not modify the analysis [under the Child Hearsay Statute] or warrant treating the issue as one implicating the defendant's confrontation rights."); People v. Whitman, 205 P.3d 371, 381 (Colo.App.2007)("Because the [child witnesses] were available and testified, the Sixth Amendment confrontation issue raised by Crawford does not apply here." (discussing the Child Hearsay Statute)); see also Crawford, 541 U.S. at 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 ("The Clause does not bar admission of a statement so long as the declarant | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rojasgreen1 sentence2012See Rojas, 181 P.3d at 1219 ("[Wlhere the child testifies at trial, Crawford ... does not modify the analysis [under the Child Hearsay Statute] or warrant treating the issue as one implicating the defendant's confrontation rights."); People v. Whitman, 205 P.3d 371, 381 (Colo.App.2007)("Because the [child witnesses] were available and testified, the Sixth Amendment confrontation issue raised by Crawford does not apply here." (discussing the Child Hearsay Statute)); see also Crawford, 541 U.S. at 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 ("The Clause does not bar admission of a statement so long as the declarant | 1 | 1 |
People v. Arnoldgreen1 sentence2005People v. Arnold, 826 P.2d 365, 366 (Colo.App.1991); see also Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 1369 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) (“The Clause also does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.”). | 1 | 1 |
Thornberry v. Delta Air Linesgreen2 sentences1991Id.; see also Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 529 (9th Cir.1983); McSurely v. McClellan, 553 F.2d 1277 (D.C.Cir.1976) ("The Court has taken `a decidedly jaundiced view towards extending the Clause so as to privilege illegal or unconstitutional conduct beyond that essential to foreclose executive control of legislative speech or debate and associated matters such as voting and committee reports and proceedings.'" (quoting Gravel, 408 U.S. at 620 , 92 S.Ct. at 2624 )). 1991Id.; see also Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 529 (9th Cir.1983); McSurely v. McClellan, 553 F.2d 1277 (D.C.Cir.1976) (“The Court has taken ‘a decidedly jaundiced view towards extending the Clause so as to privilege illegal or unconstitutional conduct beyond that essential to foreclose executive control of legislative speech or debate and associated matters such as voting and committee reports and proceedings.’ ” (quoting Gravel, 408 U.S. at 620 , 92 S.Ct. at 2624 )). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
green
1 sentence2026Thus, the attestation was prepared with the belief that the attached records “would be available for use at a later trial.” Perez, ¶ 13, 559 P.3d at 656 (quoting Melendez-Diaz, 557 U.S. at 310 ). ¶ 68 But Torres does not cite any case law or other legal authority holding that the admission of an attestation saying that the custodian of records’ search “revealed that this is the only subject with this name and date of birth” can result in a Confrontation 28 Clause violation. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State of Wyoming v. Livingston
green
1 sentence2026“Modern Supremacy 28 Clause immunity doctrine has thus largely been developed in the lower federal courts.” Livingston, 443 F.3d at 1220 . ¶ 56 We note that the procedure usually followed in these cases did not occur here. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Perez
green
1 sentence2026Thus, the attestation was prepared with the belief that the attached records “would be available for use at a later trial.” Perez, ¶ 13, 559 P.3d at 656 (quoting Melendez-Diaz, 557 U.S. at 310 ). ¶ 68 But Torres does not cite any case law or other legal authority holding that the admission of an attestation saying that the custodian of records’ search “revealed that this is the only subject with this name and date of birth” can result in a Confrontation 28 Clause violation. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Americans United for Separation of Church & State Fund, Inc. v. State
green
1 sentence2015We first addressed the challengers' Establish ment Clause claim, noting that to withstand an Establishment Clause challenge, the program "must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion." 648 P.2d at 1079 (citing Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 614 , 91 S.Ct. 2105 , 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Lemon v. Kurtzman
red
2 sentences2015We first addressed the challengers' Establish ment Clause claim, noting that to withstand an Establishment Clause challenge, the program "must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion." 648 P.2d at 1079 (citing Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 614 , 91 S.Ct. 2105 , 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971)). 2015We first addressed the challengers' Establish ment Clause claim, noting that to withstand an Establishment Clause challenge, the program "must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion." 648 P.2d at 1079 (citing Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 614 , 91 S.Ct. 2105 , 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Gravel v. United States
green
2 sentences1991Id.; see also Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 529 (9th Cir.1983); McSurely v. McClellan, 553 F.2d 1277 (D.C.Cir.1976) ("The Court has taken `a decidedly jaundiced view towards extending the Clause so as to privilege illegal or unconstitutional conduct beyond that essential to foreclose executive control of legislative speech or debate and associated matters such as voting and committee reports and proceedings.'" (quoting Gravel, 408 U.S. at 620 , 92 S.Ct. at 2624 )). 1991Id.; see also Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 529 (9th Cir.1983); McSurely v. McClellan, 553 F.2d 1277 (D.C.Cir.1976) ("The Court has taken `a decidedly jaundiced view towards extending the Clause so as to privilege illegal or unconstitutional conduct beyond that essential to foreclose executive control of legislative speech or debate and associated matters such as voting and committee reports and proceedings.'" (quoting Gravel, 408 U.S. at 620 , 92 S.Ct. at 2624 )). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Alan McSurely and Margaret McSurely v. John J. McClellan
green
2 sentences1991Id.; see also Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 529 (9th Cir.1983); McSurely v. McClellan, 553 F.2d 1277 (D.C.Cir.1976) ("The Court has taken `a decidedly jaundiced view towards extending the Clause so as to privilege illegal or unconstitutional conduct beyond that essential to foreclose executive control of legislative speech or debate and associated matters such as voting and committee reports and proceedings.'" (quoting Gravel, 408 U.S. at 620 , 92 S.Ct. at 2624 )). 1991Id.; see also Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 529 (9th Cir.1983); McSurely v. McClellan, 553 F.2d 1277 (D.C.Cir.1976) (“The Court has taken ‘a decidedly jaundiced view towards extending the Clause so as to privilege illegal or unconstitutional conduct beyond that essential to foreclose executive control of legislative speech or debate and associated matters such as voting and committee reports and proceedings.’ ” (quoting Gravel, 408 U.S. at 620 , 92 S.Ct. at 2624 )). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.