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.
8 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee 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. Salernogreen1 sentence2020Tennessee Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1) provides that “[t]estimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding” is not excluded by the hearsay rule “if the declarant is unavailable” and “if the party against whom the testimony is now offered had both an opportunity and a similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.” “Former testimony may not be introduced under [Federal Rule of Evidence] Rule 804(b)(1) without a showing of “similar motive.” United States v. Salerno, 505 U.S. 317, 317 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Causbygreen2 sentences1993Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(1) (adopted by this Court as a statement of the law in Tennessee in State v. Causby, 706 S.W.2d 628, 631 (Tenn. 1986)). [2] Whenever former testimony is at issue, the underlying question is "whether fairness allows imposing, upon the party against whom now offered, the handling of the witness on the earlier occasion." Fed. R.Evid. 804, advisory committee note, 28 U.S.C.A. at 446, subd. (b), except. (1). 1993Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(1) (adopted by this Court as a statement of the law in Tennessee in State v. Causby, 706 S.W.2d 628, 631 (Tenn.1986)). 2 Whenever former testimony is at issue, the underlying question is “whether fairness allows imposing, upon the party against whom now offered, the handling of the witness on the earlier occasion.” Fed.R.Evid. 804, advisory committee note, 28 U.S.C.A. at 446, subd. (b), except. (1). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Franklin
green
1 sentence2014Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Hicks v. State
green
1 sentence2010Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Pointer v. Texas
green
2 sentences2006Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 403 , 85 S.Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965). 11 . 2006Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 403 , 85 S.Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965). 11 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Coffee v. State
green
1 sentence2004Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Howell
green
1 sentence2002The critical question in determining the admissibility of former testimony is “‘whether fairness allows imposing, upon the party against whom [it is] now offered, the handling of the witness on the earlier occasion.’” Howell, 868 S.W.2d at 250 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Dykes
red
1 sentence1997Id. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.