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 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2004 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Mississippi 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 |
|---|---|---|
Barnette v. Stategreen2 sentences1998In Barnette v. State, 481 So.2d 788, 791 (Miss. 1985), the Court held that "a defendant's confrontation clause rights were violated where the analyst who performed certain tests was not available to testify." Hull, 687 So.2d at 717 . 1996In Barnette v. State, 481 So. 2d 788, 791 (Miss. 1985), the Court held that "a defendant's confrontation clause rights were violated where the analyst who performed certain tests was not available to testify." Hull, 687 So. 2d at 717 . | 3 | 4 |
Kettle v. Stategreen2 sentences2001The Court found that "the person who conducted the test [must] appear and testify in person." Id. at 750 . 1998The Court reversed holding the "defendant was entitled to have the person who conducted the test appear and testify in person." Id. at 750 . | 2 | 5 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hull v. State
green
2 sentences1998In Barnette v. State, 481 So.2d 788, 791 (Miss. 1985), the Court held that "a defendant's confrontation clause rights were violated where the analyst who performed certain tests was not available to testify." Hull, 687 So.2d at 717 . 1996In Barnette v. State, 481 So. 2d 788, 791 (Miss. 1985), the Court held that "a defendant's confrontation clause rights were violated where the analyst who performed certain tests was not available to testify." Hull, 687 So. 2d at 717 . | 2 | 1996–1998 |
Crisp v. Town of Hatley
green
1 sentence2004Crisp v. Town of Hatley, 796 So.2d 233 (Miss.2001). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.