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.
7 Alaska opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alaska 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 |
|---|---|---|
Benefield v. Stategreen2 sentences1987E.g., Quick v. State, 599 P.2d 712 (Alaska 1979); Benefield v. State, 559 P.2d 91, 95 (Alaska 1977); Lemon v. State, 514 P.2d 1151, 1154-57 (Alaska 1973); Mead v. State, 504 P.2d 855, 857-60 (Alaska 1972). 1987E.g., Quick v. State, 599 P.2d 712 (Alaska 1979); Benefield v. State, 559 P.2d 91, 95 (Alaska 1977); Lemon v. State, 514 P.2d 1151, 1154-57 (Alaska 1973); Mead v. State, 504 P.2d 855, 857-60 (Alaska 1972). | 2 | 2 |
Mead v. Stategreen2 sentences1977We have adopted and applied the Bruton rule in Lemon v. State, 514 P.2d 1151 (Alaska 1973); Mead v. State, 504 P.2d 855 (Alaska 1972). 1977We have adopted and applied the Bruton rule in Lemon v. State, 514 P.2d 1151 (Alaska 1973); Mead v. State, 504 P.2d 855 (Alaska 1972). | 1 | 3 |
Lemon v. Stategreen2 sentences1977We have adopted and applied the Bruton rule in Lemon v. State, 514 P.2d 1151 (Alaska 1973); Mead v. State, 504 P.2d 855 (Alaska 1972). 1977We have adopted and applied the Bruton rule in Lemon v. State, 514 P.2d 1151 (Alaska 1973); Mead v. State, 504 P.2d 855 (Alaska 1972). | 1 | 2 |
Sidney v. Stategreen2 sentences1979In Sidney v. State, 468 P.2d 960, 963 (Alaska 1970), we refused to apply the rule to the confession of a codefendant who testified at trial, reasoning that the opportunity for cross-examination nullified any claimed lack of a right to confrontation. [19] Similarly, in P.H. v. State, 504 P.2d *723 837, 843 (Alaska 1972), we held that the testimony of a kidnapping victim as to what the codefendants had said was admissible under the circumstances of the case under a recognized exception to the hearsay rule. [20] Most recently, in Benefield v. State, 559 P.2d 91, 95 (Alaska 1977), we held that pol 1979In Sidney v. State, 468 P.2d 960, 963 (Alaska 1970), we refused to apply the rule to the confession of a codefendant who testified at trial, reasoning that the opportunity for cross-examination nullified any claimed lack of a right to confrontation. [19] Similarly, in P.H. v. State, 504 P.2d *723 837, 843 (Alaska 1972), we held that the testimony of a kidnapping victim as to what the codefendants had said was admissible under the circumstances of the case under a recognized exception to the hearsay rule. [20] Most recently, in Benefield v. State, 559 P.2d 91, 95 (Alaska 1977), we held that pol | 1 | 2 |
Bruton v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2011One example of the cautious approach taken by courts when faced with admitting defendants' confessions is the Bruton rule-the rule that, when two or more defendants are being tried jointly, if one defendant has confessed and has implicated the co-defendants, that confession can not be admitted unless the confessing defendant takes the stand. [See Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 126, 128-29 , 88 S.Ct. 1620, 1622, 1624 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968).] . 2011One example of the cautious approach taken by courts when faced with admitting defendants' confessions is the Bruton rule-the rule that, when two or more defendants are being tried jointly, if one defendant has confessed and has implicated the co-defendants, that confession can not be admitted unless the confessing defendant takes the stand. [See Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 126, 128-29 , 88 S.Ct. 1620, 1622, 1624 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968).] . | 1 | 1 |
cluster 345177green1 sentence1987See United States v. Kaplan, 554 F.2d 958, 965-66 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, sub nom Dolwig v. U.S., 434 U.S. 956 , 98 S.Ct. 483 , 54 L.Ed.2d 315 (1977). 2 . | 1 | 1 |
Chapman v. Michigangreen1 sentence1987See United States v. Kaplan, 554 F.2d 958, 965-66 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, sub nom Dolwig v. U.S., 434 U.S. 956 , 98 S.Ct. 483 , 54 L.Ed.2d 315 (1977). 2 . | 1 | 1 |
McDonald v. Headrickgreen1 sentence1987See United States v. Kaplan, 554 F.2d 958, 965-66 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, sub nom Dolwig v. U.S., 434 U.S. 956 , 98 S.Ct. 483 , 54 L.Ed.2d 315 (1977). 2 . | 1 | 1 |
PH v. Stategreen2 sentences1979In Sidney v. State, 468 P.2d 960, 963 (Alaska 1970), we refused to apply the rule to the confession of a codefendant who testified at trial, reasoning that the opportunity for cross-examination nullified any claimed lack of a right to confrontation. 19 Similarly, in P.H. v. State, 504 P.2d 837, 843 (Alaska 1972), we held that the testimony of a kidnapping victim as to what the codefendants had said was admissible under the circumstances of the case under a recognized exception to the hearsay rule. 20 Most recently, in Benefield v. State, 559 P.2d 91, 95 (Alaska 1977), we held that police offic 1979In Sidney v. State, 468 P.2d 960, 963 (Alaska 1970), we refused to apply the rule to the confession of a codefendant who testified at trial, reasoning that the opportunity for cross-examination nullified any claimed lack of a right to confrontation. 19 Similarly, in P.H. v. State, 504 P.2d 837, 843 (Alaska 1972), we held that the testimony of a kidnapping victim as to what the codefendants had said was admissible under the circumstances of the case under a recognized exception to the hearsay rule. 20 Most recently, in Benefield v. State, 559 P.2d 91, 95 (Alaska 1977), we held that police offic | 1 | 1 |
Whitton v. Stategreen2 sentences1977See also Whitton v. State, 479 P.2d 302 (Alaska 1970). 6 . 1977See also Whitton v. State, 479 P.2d 302 (Alaska 1970). 6 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pease v. State
green
2 sentences2017But if the statement was altered as the prosecutor proposed, and if (as required by Bruton) no one could ask Viado to clarify that Mayuyo had been accusing Balallo of sexual assault, then Mayuyo’s altered statement would appear to be an admission of Mayuyo’s own wrongdoing. 5 Ibid. 6 Id. at 328 . 7 Ibid. 8 Id. at 329 . –4– 2556 This flaw in the prosecutor’s approach to the Bruton issue should have been obvious to everyone involved in the trial. 2017But if the statement was altered as the prosecutor proposed, and if (as required by Bruton) no one could ask Viado to clarify that Mayuyo had been accusing Balallo of sexual assault, then Mayuyo’s altered statement would appear to be an admission of Mayuyo’s own wrongdoing. 5 Ibid. 6 Id. at 328 . 7 Ibid. 8 Id. at 329 . –4– 2556 This flaw in the prosecutor’s approach to the Bruton issue should have been obvious to everyone involved in the trial. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Richardson v. Marsh
green
2 sentences1994The Marsh dissent disagreed with the majority’s categorical restriction of the Bruton rule, reasoning that a basic premise of the rule was that “certain kinds of hearsay ‘are at once so damaging, so suspect, and yet so difficult to discount, that jurors cannot be trusted to give such evidence the minimal weight it logically deserves, whatever instructions the trial judge might give.’ ” Id. at 212 , *647 107 S.Ct. at 1710 . 1994The Marsh dissent disagreed with the majority’s categorical restriction of the Bruton rule, reasoning that a basic premise of the rule was that “certain kinds of hearsay ‘are at once so damaging, so suspect, and yet so difficult to discount, that jurors cannot be trusted to give such evidence the minimal weight it logically deserves, whatever instructions the trial judge might give.’ ” Id. at 212 , *647 107 S.Ct. at 1710 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Quick v. State
green
2 sentences1987E.g., Quick v. State, 599 P.2d 712 (Alaska 1979); Benefield v. State, 559 P.2d 91, 95 (Alaska 1977); Lemon v. State, 514 P.2d 1151, 1154-57 (Alaska 1973); Mead v. State, 504 P.2d 855, 857-60 (Alaska 1972). 1987E.g., Quick v. State, 599 P.2d 712 (Alaska 1979); Benefield v. State, 559 P.2d 91, 95 (Alaska 1977); Lemon v. State, 514 P.2d 1151, 1154-57 (Alaska 1973); Mead v. State, 504 P.2d 855, 857-60 (Alaska 1972). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Parker v. Randolph
red
2 sentences1979This so called "interlocking confessions" exception to the Bruton rule was recently endorsed by a plurality of the United States Supreme Court in Parker v. Randolph, ___ U.S. ___, 99 S.Ct. 2132 , 60 L.Ed.2d 713 (1979). 1979This so called "interlocking confessions" exception to the Bruton rule was recently endorsed by a plurality of the United States Supreme Court in Parker v. Randolph, ___ U.S. ___, 99 S.Ct. 2132 , 60 L.Ed.2d 713 (1979). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.