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 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pointer v. Texasgreen2 sentences2017In a criminal proceeding, a defendant's "right of confrontation and cross- examination is an essential and fundamental requirement for the kind of fair trial which is this country's constitutional goal." Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400,405 , 85 S. Ct. 1065 , 13 L. 2017In a criminal proceeding, a defendant's "right of confrontation and cross- examination is an essential and fundamental requirement for the kind of fair trial which is this country's constitutional goal." Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400,405 , 85 S. Ct. 1065 , 13 L. | 1 | 5 |
Seling v. Younggreen2 sentences2007See also Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 405 , 85 S.Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965) ("There are few subjects, perhaps, upon which this Court and other courts have been more nearly unanimous than in their expressions of belief that the right of confrontation and cross-examination is an essential and fundamental requirement for the kind of fair trial which is this country's constitutional goal."). [2] Both this court and the United States Supreme Court have dubbed SVP procedures as "civil." Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250, 261 , 121 S.Ct. 727 , 148 L.Ed.2d 734 (2001). 2007See also Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 405 , 85 S.Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965) ("There are few subjects, perhaps, upon which this Court and other courts have been more nearly unanimous than in their expressions of belief that the right of confrontation and cross-examination is an essential and fundamental requirement for the kind of fair trial which is this country's constitutional goal."). [2] Both this court and the United States Supreme Court have dubbed SVP procedures as "civil." Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250, 261 , 121 S.Ct. 727 , 148 L.Ed.2d 734 (2001). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Kosanke
green
1 sentence2002L.REV. 835 (1996). "`There are few subjects, perhaps, upon which [the Supreme Court] and other courts have been more nearly unanimous than in their expressions of belief that the right of confrontation and cross-examination is an essential and fundamental requirement for the kind of fair trial which is this country's constitutional goal.'" Id. at 840 (quoting Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 405 , 85 S.Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965)). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Chambers v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences1976While it is “ ‘an essential and fundamental requirement ... of [a] fair trial”, the right to cross-examine is not absolute, but “its denial or significant diminution calls into question the ultimate ‘ “integrity of the fact-finding process” ’ and requires that the competing interest be closely examined.” Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 295 , 35 L. 1976While it is “ ‘an essential and fundamental requirement ... of [a] fair trial”, the right to cross-examine is not absolute, but “its denial or significant diminution calls into question the ultimate ‘ “integrity of the fact-finding process” ’ and requires that the competing interest be closely examined.” Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 295 , 35 L. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.