7 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Baileygreen1 sentence2023The State is barred from intimating “that an expert is unethical or incompetent without properly admitted evidence to support it.” State v. Bailey, 132 Ariz. 472, 479 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Harry P. Casoni, A/K/A Pete Casonigreen1 sentence2000See McCormick, § 277 at 248; Weinstein, § 803.11[7][a], at 803-76; United States v. Casoni 950 F.2d 893, 896-97, 908-14 (3d Cir.1991). ¶ 18 These authorities highlight an anomaly under the strict view of admissibility adopted by the ALJ: Some documents would be excluded from Commission proceedings by the cross-examination rule but would be admissible in court under the presumably “stricter” legal rules of evidence. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Antonio Fernandez, Jorge Recarey, Mariano Villa Del Raygreen2 sentences1994But an oath alone “is an inadequate safeguard to meet the requirement ... that the statement have ‘equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness’; otherwise, Congress could have dispensed with the cross-examination requirement codified in Rule 804(b)(1).” United States v. Fernandez, 892 F.2d 976, 981 (11th Cir.1989), cert. dismissed, 495 U.S. 944 , 110 S.Ct. 2201 , 109 L.Ed.2d 527 (1990). 1994Fernandez, 892 F.2d at 981 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Limpusgreen2 sentences1990State v. Limpus, 128 Ariz. 371, 374 , 625 P.2d 960, 963 (App.1981). 2 However, a prosecutor who responds negatively to an argument by defense counsel in support of mitigation breaches a plea agreement to take no position on sentencing. 1990State v. Limpus, 128 Ariz. 371, 374 , 625 P.2d 960, 963 (App.1981). 2 However, a prosecutor who responds negatively to an argument by defense counsel in support of mitigation breaches a plea agreement to take no position on sentencing. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Zawada
green
1 sentence2023In Winston’s closing argument, he countered that the State used its “unlimited amount of resources” to investigate and prosecute this case. ¶26 Recognizing ethical limits to the State’s cross-examination of defense experts, our courts have found it improper for the State to “attack the expert with non-evidence, using irrelevant, insulting cross-examination and baseless argument designed to mislead the jury.” In re Zawada, 208 Ariz. 232, 237 , ¶¶ 14–16 (2004). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-561
green
2 sentences2014By focusing on whether there are “sufficient in-dicia of reliability,” rather than a cross-examination right, Rule 45(E) accounts for the concern about “the risk that the procedures used will lead to erroneous decisions.” JD-561, 131 Ariz. at 27 , 638 P.2d at 694 . 2014By focusing on whether there are “sufficient in-dicia of reliability,” rather than a cross-examination right, Rule 45(E) accounts for the concern about “the risk that the procedures used will lead to erroneous decisions.” JD-561, 131 Ariz. at 27 , 638 P.2d at 694 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Idaho v. Wright
green
2 sentences1994In Wright , the Supreme Court stated that “if the declarant’s truthfulness is so clear from the surrounding circumstances that the test of cross-examination would be of marginal utility, then the hearsay rule does not bar admission of the statement at trial.” Wright, 497 U.S. at 820 , 110 S.Ct. at 3149 . 1994In Wright , the Supreme Court stated that “if the declarant’s truthfulness is so clear from the surrounding circumstances that the test of cross-examination would be of marginal utility, then the hearsay rule does not bar admission of the statement at trial.” Wright, 497 U.S. at 820 , 110 S.Ct. at 3149 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
In re Disbarment of Hipp
green
1 sentence1994But an oath alone “is an inadequate safeguard to meet the requirement ... that the statement have ‘equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness’; otherwise, Congress could have dispensed with the cross-examination requirement codified in Rule 804(b)(1).” United States v. Fernandez, 892 F.2d 976, 981 (11th Cir.1989), cert. dismissed, 495 U.S. 944 , 110 S.Ct. 2201 , 109 L.Ed.2d 527 (1990). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Recarey v. United States
green
1 sentence1994But an oath alone “is an inadequate safeguard to meet the requirement ... that the statement have ‘equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness’; otherwise, Congress could have dispensed with the cross-examination requirement codified in Rule 804(b)(1).” United States v. Fernandez, 892 F.2d 976, 981 (11th Cir.1989), cert. dismissed, 495 U.S. 944 , 110 S.Ct. 2201 , 109 L.Ed.2d 527 (1990). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Luce v. United States
green
2 sentences1990Luce, 469 U.S. at 41-42 , 105 S.Ct. at 463 , 83 L.Ed.2d at 447-48 . 1990Luce, 469 U.S. at 41-42 , 105 S.Ct. at 463 , 83 L.Ed.2d at 447-48 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1973In Harris, supra, the defendant gave statements to police under circumstances not conforming with the dictates of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 (1966). 1973In Harris, supra, the defendant gave statements to police under circumstances not conforming with the dictates of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 (1966). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.