7 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2016 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Melendezgreen2 sentences2016Cf. People v. Melendez, 102 P.3d 315, 319 (Colo. 2004) (“In proper circumstances, the trial court may sequester witnesses, find that a witness has violated the sequestration order, and impose sanctions for the sequestration violation.”) (emphasis added). 2009In People v. Melendez, 102 P.3d 315 (Colo.2004), although we referenced Valenzuela-Bernal as support for the proposition that the right to present defense evidence is not absolute, see Melendez, 102 P.3d at 320 , we did not condition a finding of constitutional error in that case on the demonstration of a reasonable probability or reasonable likelihood that the outcome of the trial would have been different but for the trial court's misapplication of the sequestration rule. | 2 | 3 |
People v. Woodgreen2 sentences2006"Before it considers sanctions for a sequestration violation, the trial court must first determine that a violation has actually occurred and prejudice will result from unrestricted admission of the testimony." People v. Melendez, 102 P.3d 315, 319 (Colo.2004). *629 As pertinent here, CRE 615 provides that, upon either its own motion or the request of a party, the trial court "shall order witnesses excluded so they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses." "The purpose of a sequestration order is to 'prevent a witness from conforming his [or her] testimony to that of other witnesses and t 2004See People v. Wood, 743 P.2d 422, 429-30 (Colo.1987); People v. P.R.G., 729 P.2d 380, 382 (Colo.App.1986). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Scarlettgreen1 sentence2006"Before it considers sanctions for a sequestration violation, the trial court must first determine that a violation has actually occurred and prejudice will result from unrestricted admission of the testimony." People v. Melendez, 102 P.3d 315, 319 (Colo.2004). *629 As pertinent here, CRE 615 provides that, upon either its own motion or the request of a party, the trial court "shall order witnesses excluded so they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses." "The purpose of a sequestration order is to 'prevent a witness from conforming his [or her] testimony to that of other witnesses and t | 1 | 1 |
Holder v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2004See Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 92 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893)("[Tlhe weight of authority is that [a witness] cannot be excluded on [the] ground [of a sequestration violation] merely...."}. 2004See Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 92 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893)("[Tlhe weight of authority is that [a witness] cannot be excluded on [the] ground [of a sequestration violation] merely...."}. | 1 | 1 |
Schuyler Nat. Bank v. Bollong. Three Casesgreen1 sentence2004See Holder v. United States, 150 U.S. 91, 92 , 14 S.Ct. 10 , 37 L.Ed. 1010 (1893)("[Tlhe weight of authority is that [a witness] cannot be excluded on [the] ground [of a sequestration violation] merely...."}. | 1 | 1 |
Vickers v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2004See Vickers v. People, 31 Colo. 491 , 73 P. 845 (1903). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gomezgreen1 sentence2004See Wood, 743 P.2d at 429 (finding no prejudice to defendant requiring exclusion of witness for sequestration violation); cf. People v. Gomez, 632 P.2d 586, 594 (Colo.1981)(approving trial court's limitation on scope of testimony by witness who violated sequestration order). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Watkinsgreen1 sentence2004See People v. Watkins, 83 P.3d 1182, 1186 (Colo.App.2003)(approving trial court's limitation on presentation of evidence to avoid unnecessary "mini-trials"); see also United States v. Graham, 2003 WL 23156628 *2 (D.Colo. | 1 | 1 |
People v. P.R.G.green1 sentence2004See People v. Wood, 743 P.2d 422, 429-30 (Colo.1987); People v. P.R.G., 729 P.2d 380, 382 (Colo.App.1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Segura v. People
green
2 sentences1986In Segura v. People, 159 Colo. at 371 , 412 P.2d at 227 , a first-degree murder case, defense counsel agreed with the prosecutor that sequestration of the jury was unnecessary. 1986In Segura v. People, 159 Colo. at 371 , 412 P.2d at 227 , a first-degree murder case, defense counsel agreed with the prosecutor that sequestration of the jury was unnecessary. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Martin v. Porak
green
1 sentence1985Martin v. Porak, supra. These policy reasons apply with equal force to known rebuttal witnesses. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Gene Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
green
1 sentence1981Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 650 F.2d 1365 (5th Cir. 1981). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.