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 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2006–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tennessee v. Streetgreen2 sentences2016Thus, if the witness “appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of her prior testimonial statements.” Eustis v. State, 191 S.W.3d 879, 886 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d) (citing California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 162 (1970)).4 “The Confrontational Clause does not bar admission of a statement so long as the declarant is present at trial to defend or explain it.” Id. (citing Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414 (1985)). 2. 2006Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414 , 105 S.Ct. 2078 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985). | 1 | 5 |
Robert Watson v. Stategreen1 sentence2022See Watson, 421 S.W.3d at 196 . | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2016App. P. 44.2(a); see Williams v. State, 958 S.W.2d 186, 194 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
California v. Greenred2 sentences2016Thus, if the witness “appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of her prior testimonial statements.” Eustis v. State, 191 S.W.3d 879, 886 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d) (citing California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 162 (1970)).4 “The Confrontational Clause does not bar admission of a statement so long as the declarant is present at trial to defend or explain it.” Id. (citing Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414 (1985)). 2. 2016Thus, if the witness “appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of her prior testimonial statements.” Eustis v. State, 191 S.W.3d 879, 886 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d) (citing California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 162 (1970)).4 “The Confrontational Clause does not bar admission of a statement so long as the declarant is present at trial to defend or explain it.” Id. (citing Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414 (1985)). 2. | 1 | 1 |
Eustis v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Thus, if the witness “appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of her prior testimonial statements.” Eustis v. State, 191 S.W.3d 879, 886 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d) (citing California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 162 (1970)).4 “The Confrontational Clause does not bar admission of a statement so long as the declarant is present at trial to defend or explain it.” Id. (citing Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414 (1985)). 2. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.