7 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2010 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee 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 |
|---|---|---|
White v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences2010Later, however, the Supreme Court ruled that "where the proffered hearsay has sufficient guarantees of reliability to come within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule, the Confrontation Clause is satisfied." White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356 (1992). 22 In Henderson, 554 S.W.2d at 119-20 , our supreme court ruled that toxicology reports indicating the presence of illegal drugs could not be admitted through a witness other than the one that performed the test. 2004The Supreme Court has held, however, that the confrontation clause is satisfied by evidence that falls “within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule[.]” White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356 , 112 S. Ct. 736, 743 , 116 L. | 1 | 2 |
Stevens v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2004A "statement against interest by a co- defendant made during custodial interrogation does not fall within a firmly rooted hearsay exception." Farrell, 34 P.3d at 406 (quoting Stevens v. People, 29 P.3d 305, 313 (Colo. 2001.)) Because Guartos is a co-defendant, who made statements against interest in the course of a custodial interrogation, his statements cannot be classified as falling under a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 1 |
Lilly v. Virginiagreen2 sentences2002That having been said, the plurality in Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 133-134 , 119 S. Ct. 1887, 1898-1899 (1999), declined to hold that, in the specific context of accomplices’ confessions that inculpate a criminal defendant, the statement against interest exception -48- to the hearsay rule is a firmly rooted exception for purposes of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, albeit the government may demonstrate that a confession possesses particularized guarantees of trustworthiness dispensing with the need for confrontation. 2002That having been said, the plurality in Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 133-134 , 119 S. Ct. 1887, 1898-1899 (1999), declined to hold that, in the specific context of accomplices’ confessions that inculpate a criminal defendant, the statement against interest exception -48- to the hearsay rule is a firmly rooted exception for purposes of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, albeit the government may demonstrate that a confession possesses particularized guarantees of trustworthiness dispensing with the need for confrontation. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2007In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), however, the Supreme Court departed from its ruling in RobeHs and established a new standard for the admissibility of hearsay statements under the Confrontation Clause. 2 Id. at 61 . 2007In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), however, the Supreme Court departed from its ruling in RobeHs and established a new standard for the admissibility of hearsay statements under the Confrontation Clause. 2 Id. at 61 . | 3 | 2006–2007 |
Ohio v. Roberts
red
2 sentences2007In Roberts , the Court held that “when a hearsay declarant is not present for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause normally requires a showing that he is unavailable,” id. at 66 , and even when there is a showing of unavailability, the hearsay statement “is admissible only if it bears adequate ‘indicia of reliability,’ ” id. “[Ujnder Roberts , an out-of-court statement by an unavailable witness is admissible if it (1) falls within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule or (2) contains such particularized guarantees of trustworthiness that adversarial testing of the state 2007In Roberts , the Court held that “when a hearsay declarant is not present for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause normally requires a showing that he is unavailable,” id. at 66 , and even when there is a showing of unavailability, the hearsay statement “is admissible only if it bears adequate ‘indicia of reliability,’ ” id. “[Ujnder Roberts , an out-of-court statement by an unavailable witness is admissible if it (1) falls within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule or (2) contains such particularized guarantees of trustworthiness that adversarial testing of the state | 3 | 2006–2007 |
State v. Henderson
green
1 sentence2010Later, however, the Supreme Court ruled that "where the proffered hearsay has sufficient guarantees of reliability to come within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule, the Confrontation Clause is satisfied." White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356 (1992). 22 In Henderson, 554 S.W.2d at 119-20 , our supreme court ruled that toxicology reports indicating the presence of illegal drugs could not be admitted through a witness other than the one that performed the test. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. MacLin
red
1 sentence2007In Roberts , the Court held that “when a hearsay declarant is not present for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause normally requires a showing that he is unavailable,” id. at 66 , and even when there is a showing of unavailability, the hearsay statement “is admissible only if it bears adequate ‘indicia of reliability,’ ” id. “[Ujnder Roberts , an out-of-court statement by an unavailable witness is admissible if it (1) falls within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule or (2) contains such particularized guarantees of trustworthiness that adversarial testing of the state | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Farrell
green
1 sentence2004A "statement against interest by a co- defendant made during custodial interrogation does not fall within a firmly rooted hearsay exception." Farrell, 34 P.3d at 406 (quoting Stevens v. People, 29 P.3d 305, 313 (Colo. 2001.)) Because Guartos is a co-defendant, who made statements against interest in the course of a custodial interrogation, his statements cannot be classified as falling under a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule. | 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.