8 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee of Supreme Court v. Grimesgreen1 sentence2010CRCP. 237(a), Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee of the Supreme Court of Colorado v. Grimes, 654 P.2d 822, 823 (Colo.1982). | 1 | 1 |
Crawford v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2007Under our holding in Mojica-Simental, requiring a proper waiver before application of the statute, admission of the report was a violation of Coleman's fundamental right to confront witnesses. 73 P.3d at 20-21; see also Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 50 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) (holding that admission of ex parte affidavits without cross-examination violates the Sixth Amendment). 2007Under our holding in Mojica-Simental, requiring a proper waiver before application of the statute, admission of the report was a violation of Coleman's fundamental right to confront witnesses. 73 P.3d at 20-21; see also Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 50 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) (holding that admission of ex parte affidavits without cross-examination violates the Sixth Amendment). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Smallgreen2 sentences1998We held that the defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination was not contravened by production of the report because that privilege is personal in nature and “the defendant was in no way compelled to be a witness against himself, nor were communications extorted from him.” Small, 631 P.2d at 158 . 1998We similarly rejected the defendant’s assertion of a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, turning to Nobles, 422 U.S. at 241 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , for the proposition that “[t]he Sixth Amendment does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversarial system; one cannot invoke the Sixth Amendment as a justification for presenting what might have been a half-truth.” Small, 631 P.2d at 158 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nat. Farmers Un. Prop. & Cas. v. DENVER DC
green
1 sentence2025That argument pertains to the work product doctrine, see Nat’l Farmers, 718 P.2d at 1047 -48 — a basis the District and the Records Custodian didn’t rely on and the trial court didn’t cite in support of nondisclosure. • Waiver of the privilege: The District didn’t waive the attorney-client privilege by asserting it as a basis to resist disclosure of the Quimby Report or by providing general testimony (through its attorney) about the report at the hearing to resolve the issue of privilege. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
1 sentence2025He also made conclusory allegations that the prosecution had withheld the report from the defense in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). ¶9 The postconviction court denied Howell’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim without a hearing, finding that trial and postconviction counsel acted reasonably by not further investigating the missing rape kit when the prosecution said it was lost. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
v. Fuerst
neutral
1 sentence2020The court admitted the report of analysis and Avram testified that Jiron’s BAC was .334. ¶ 65 Here, as in Marshall and People v. Fuerst, 2019 COA 2 , Avram’s testimony satisfied the requirements of the Confrontation Clause and section 16-3-309(5). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
United States v. Nobles
green
2 sentences1998We similarly rejected the defendant’s assertion of a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, turning to Nobles, 422 U.S. at 241 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , for the proposition that “[t]he Sixth Amendment does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversarial system; one cannot invoke the Sixth Amendment as a justification for presenting what might have been a half-truth.” Small, 631 P.2d at 158 (internal quotation marks omitted). 1998We similarly rejected the defendant’s assertion of a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, turning to Nobles, 422 U.S. at 241 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , for the proposition that “[t]he Sixth Amendment does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversarial system; one cannot invoke the Sixth Amendment as a justification for presenting what might have been a half-truth.” Small, 631 P.2d at 158 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Buchanan v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences1994In Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402, 422-23 , 107 S.Ct. 2906, 2917-18 , 97 L.Ed.2d 336 (1987), the prosecution used a report of a defense-retained psychiatrist to rebut the mental status defense of the defendant where the defendant did not testify at trial. 1994In Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402, 422-23 , 107 S.Ct. 2906, 2917-18 , 97 L.Ed.2d 336 (1987), the prosecution used a report of a defense-retained psychiatrist to rebut the mental status defense of the defendant where the defendant did not testify at trial. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People ex rel. Colorado Bar Ass'n v. Humbert
neutral
1 sentence1976Humbert, 51 Colo. 60 , 117 Pac. 139 (1911) (moral turpitude in business transaction warrants disbarment).” We approve and adopt the report of the grievance committee as set forth above.'It is manifest from the report of the hearing panel that the respondent has been guilty of conduct contrary to the highest standards of honesty, justice and morality and that he lacks that high degree of integrity which is absolutely essential to one who is permitted to hold *278 himself out as an attorney licensed to practice law by this court. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.