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 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
Barber v. Pagegreen2 sentences2011Basing its conclusion on precedent, the plurality categorized the right of confrontation as a “trial right.” Id. (emphasis in original) (citing California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 157 , 90 S.Ct. 1930 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970) (“[I]t is this literal right to ‘confront’ the witness at the time of trial that forms the core of the values furthered by the Confrontation Clause[.]”); Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 725 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968) (“The right to confrontation is basically a trial right[.]”)). 2011Basing its conclusion on precedent, the plurality categorized the right of confrontation as a “trial right.” Id. (emphasis in original) (citing California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 157 , 90 S.Ct. 1930 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970) (“[I]t is this literal right to ‘confront’ the witness at the time of trial that forms the core of the values furthered by the Confrontation Clause[.]”); Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 725 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968) (“The right to confrontation is basically a trial right[.]”)). | 2 | 2 |
California v. Greenred2 sentences2011Basing its conclusion on precedent, the plurality categorized the right of confrontation as a “trial right.” Id. (emphasis in original) (citing California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 157 , 90 S.Ct. 1930 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970) (“[I]t is this literal right to ‘confront’ the witness at the time of trial that forms the core of the values furthered by the Confrontation Clause[.]”); Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 725 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968) (“The right to confrontation is basically a trial right[.]”)). 2011Basing its conclusion on precedent, the plurality categorized the right of confrontation as a “trial right.” Id. (emphasis in original) (citing California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 157 , 90 S.Ct. 1930 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970) (“[I]t is this literal right to ‘confront’ the witness at the time of trial that forms the core of the values furthered by the Confrontation Clause[.]”); Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 725 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968) (“The right to confrontation is basically a trial right[.]”)). | 2 | 2 |
Rubalcada v. Stategreen2 sentences2015As both Indiana and federal courts have noted, “the Confrontation Clause is not a constitutionally compelled rule of pretrial discovery,” but instead “only guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.” Moore v. State, 839 N.E.2d 178, 184 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (quoting Rubalcada v. State, 731 N.E.2d 1015, 1021 (Ind.2000), in turn quoting Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 52-53 , 107 S.Ct. 989 , 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987)) (emphasis in original) (internal citations and quotations omit 2010Id. at 1021 (citing Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 52 , 107 S.Ct. 989 ). | 1 | 3 |
Moore v. Stategreen1 sentence2015As both Indiana and federal courts have noted, “the Confrontation Clause is not a constitutionally compelled rule of pretrial discovery,” but instead “only guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.” Moore v. State, 839 N.E.2d 178, 184 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (quoting Rubalcada v. State, 731 N.E.2d 1015, 1021 (Ind.2000), in turn quoting Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 52-53 , 107 S.Ct. 989 , 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987)) (emphasis in original) (internal citations and quotations omit | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pennsylvania v. Ritchie
green
2 sentences2015As both Indiana and federal courts have noted, “the Confrontation Clause is not a constitutionally compelled rule of pretrial discovery,” but instead “only guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.” Moore v. State, 839 N.E.2d 178, 184 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (quoting Rubalcada v. State, 731 N.E.2d 1015, 1021 (Ind.2000), in turn quoting Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 52-53 , 107 S.Ct. 989 , 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987)) (emphasis in original) (internal citations and quotations omit 2015As both Indiana and federal courts have noted, “the Confrontation Clause is not a constitutionally compelled rule of pretrial discovery,” but instead “only guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.” Moore v. State, 839 N.E.2d 178, 184 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (quoting Rubalcada v. State, 731 N.E.2d 1015, 1021 (Ind.2000), in turn quoting Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 52-53 , 107 S.Ct. 989 , 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987)) (emphasis in original) (internal citations and quotations omit | 7 | 2000–2015 |
State ex rel. Fogle v. Carlisle
green
1 sentence2005As for his argument that the trial court's ruling violated his right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 3 we note that the Confrontation Clause "is not a constitutionally compelled rule of pretrial discovery." Ru-balcada v. State, 781 N.E.2d 1015 , 1021 (Ind.2000) (citing Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 52 , 107 S.Ct. 989 , 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987)). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.