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 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2003 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wisconsin 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ballosgreen2 sentences2003See also State v. Williams, 2002 WI 58, ¶ 7 , 253 Wis. 2d 99 , 644 N.W.2d 919 (citing State v. Bollos, 230 Wis. 2d 495, 504 , 602 N.W.2d 117 (Ct. App. 1999)). 13 State v. Bauer, 109 Wis. 2d 204, 210 , 325 N.W.2d 857 (1982). 2003See also State v. Williams, 2002 WI 58, ¶ 7 , 253 Wis. 2d 99 , 644 N.W.2d 919 (citing State v. Bollos, 230 Wis. 2d 495, 504 , 602 N.W.2d 117 (Ct. App. 1999)). 13 State v. Bauer, 109 Wis. 2d 204, 210 , 325 N.W.2d 857 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bauergreen2 sentences2003See also State v. Williams, 2002 WI 58, ¶ 7 , 253 Wis. 2d 99 , 644 N.W.2d 919 (citing State v. Bollos, 230 Wis. 2d 495, 504 , 602 N.W.2d 117 (Ct. App. 1999)). 13 State v. Bauer, 109 Wis. 2d 204, 210 , 325 N.W.2d 857 (1982). 2003See also State v. Williams, 2002 WI 58, ¶ 7 , 253 Wis. 2d 99 , 644 N.W.2d 919 (citing State v. Bollos, 230 Wis. 2d 495, 504 , 602 N.W.2d 117 (Ct. App. 1999)). 13 State v. Bauer, 109 Wis. 2d 204, 210 , 325 N.W.2d 857 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2003See also State v. Williams, 2002 WI 58, ¶ 7 , 253 Wis. 2d 99 , 644 N.W.2d 919 (citing State v. Bollos, 230 Wis. 2d 495, 504 , 602 N.W.2d 117 (Ct. App. 1999)). 13 State v. Bauer, 109 Wis. 2d 204, 210 , 325 N.W.2d 857 (1982). 2003See also State v. Williams, 2002 WI 58, ¶ 7 , 253 Wis. 2d 99 , 644 N.W.2d 919 (citing State v. Bollos, 230 Wis. 2d 495, 504 , 602 N.W.2d 117 (Ct. App. 1999)). 13 State v. Bauer, 109 Wis. 2d 204, 210 , 325 N.W.2d 857 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
Delaware v. Fensterergreen1 sentence1986Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of another proceeding, at the instance of or against a party with an opportunity to develop the testimony by direct, cross-, or redirect examination, with motive and interest similar to those of the party against whom now offered. 4 “Generally speaking, the Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination *440 that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.” (E | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ohio v. Roberts
red
2 sentences1989Unavailability is also an element of the confrontation clause requirements announced in Roberts, 448 U.S. at 65 . 1982In Ohio v. Roberts, supra, the Court found that preliminary examination testimony falls within a “firmly rooted” hearsay exception. | 2 | 1982–1989 |
State v. Dunn
green
2 sentences2003Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of another proceeding, at the instance of or against a party with an opportunity to develop the testimony by direct, cross-, or redirect examination, with motive and interest similar to those of the party against whom now offered. 9 State v. Dunn, 121 Wis. 2d 389, 397 , 359 N.W.2d 151 (1984) (at a preliminary hearing a judge ascertains plausibility of a witness's story, and whether, if believed, it would support a bindover; the preliminary hearing j 2003Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of another proceeding, at the instance of or against a party with an opportunity to develop the testimony by direct, cross-, or redirect examination, with motive and interest similar to those of the party against whom now offered. 9 State v. Dunn, 121 Wis. 2d 389, 397 , 359 N.W.2d 151 (1984) (at a preliminary hearing a judge ascertains plausibility of a witness's story, and whether, if believed, it would support a bindover; the preliminary hearing j | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Tomlinson
green
2 sentences2003Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of another proceeding, at the instance of or against a party with an opportunity to develop the testimony by direct, cross-, or redirect examination, with motive and interest similar to those of the party against whom now offered. 9 State v. Dunn, 121 Wis. 2d 389, 397 , 359 N.W.2d 151 (1984) (at a preliminary hearing a judge ascertains plausibility of a witness's story, and whether, if believed, it would support a bindover; the preliminary hearing j 2003Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of another proceeding, at the instance of or against a party with an opportunity to develop the testimony by direct, cross-, or redirect examination, with motive and interest similar to those of the party against whom now offered. 9 State v. Dunn, 121 Wis. 2d 389, 397 , 359 N.W.2d 151 (1984) (at a preliminary hearing a judge ascertains plausibility of a witness's story, and whether, if believed, it would support a bindover; the preliminary hearing j | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2001The pertinent portion states: Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of another proceeding, at the instance of or against a party with an opportunity to develop the testimony by direct, cross-, or redirect examination, with motive and interest similar to those of the party against whom now offered. 3 As in all Fourth Amendment search cases involving consent, the state has the burden of proving that the search was the result of "free, intelligent, unequivocal and specific consent withou 2001The pertinent portion states: Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of another proceeding, at the instance of or against a party with an opportunity to develop the testimony by direct, cross-, or redirect examination, with motive and interest similar to those of the party against whom now offered. 3 As in all Fourth Amendment search cases involving consent, the state has the burden of proving that the search was the result of "free, intelligent, unequivocal and specific consent withou | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Franklin
green
1 sentence1995Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of another proceeding, at the instance of or against a party with an opportunity to develop the testimony by direct, cross-, or redirect examination, with motive and interest similar to those of the party against whom now offered. [1] For example, the majority's expansion of the scope of the Fifth Amendment could easily lead to the following result: a witness who has been previously convicted and sentenced for a crime may claim the privilege and r | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Inda v. State
green
2 sentences1981Hearsay exceptions; declarant unavailable; definition of unavailability. (1) ‘Unavailability as a witness’ includes situations in which the declarant: . . . (e) Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been unable to procure his attendance by process or other reasonable means." (Emphasis added.) The Judicial Council Committee’s Note on this subsection states that: “The provision of this section that the proponent of the hearsay statements referred to in this section must establish his inability to procure the declarant’s attendance ‘by process or other reasonable means 1981Hearsay exceptions; declarant unavailable; definition of unavailability. (1) ‘Unavailability as a witness’ includes situations in which the declarant: . . . (e) Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been unable to procure his attendance by process or other reasonable means." (Emphasis added.) The Judicial Council Committee’s Note on this subsection states that: “The provision of this section that the proponent of the hearsay statements referred to in this section must establish his inability to procure the declarant’s attendance ‘by process or other reasonable means | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.