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.
6 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1977–1998 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado 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 |
|---|---|---|
Krulewitch v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1998The scope of the co-conspirator exception 4 is narrow, see Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440, 444 , 69 S.Ct. 716, 718-19 , 93 L.Ed. 790 (1949), and the requirement that the co-conspirator’s statement be made during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy is a “prerequisite to admissibility” that must be “scrupulously observed.” Id. 1998The scope of the co-conspirator exception 4 is narrow, see Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440, 444 , 69 S.Ct. 716, 718-19 , 93 L.Ed. 790 (1949), and the requirement that the co-conspirator’s statement be made during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy is a “prerequisite to admissibility” that must be “scrupulously observed.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Orrgreen2 sentences1998Among the numerous other cases articulating this principle are Lutwak, 344 U.S. at 616-18 , 73 S.Ct. at 488-90 ; Krulewitch, 336 U.S. at 442-44 , 69 S.Ct. at 717-19 ; Fiswick, 329 U.S. at 217 , 67 S.Ct. at 227-28 ; and People v. Orr, 39 Colo.App. 289, 295 , 566 P.2d 1361, 1366 (1977). 7 . 1998Among the numerous other cases articulating this principle are Lutwak, 344 U.S. at 616-18 , 73 S.Ct. at 488-90 ; Krulewitch, 336 U.S. at 442-44 , 69 S.Ct. at 717-19 ; Fiswick, 329 U.S. at 217 , 67 S.Ct. at 227-28 ; and People v. Orr, 39 Colo.App. 289, 295 , 566 P.2d 1361, 1366 (1977). 7 . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Richard Virgil Bibbero, Jr., United States of America v. James Paul Marshallgreen1 sentence1993See United States v. Bibbero, 749 F.2d 581 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1103 , 105 S.Ct. 2330 , 85 L.Ed.2d 847 (1985); United States v. Lieberman, 637 F.2d 95 (2d Cir.1980); United States v. Castillo, 615 F.2d 878 (9th Cir.1980). | 1 | 1 |
Cosman v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1993See United States v. Bibbero, 749 F.2d 581 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1103 , 105 S.Ct. 2330 , 85 L.Ed.2d 847 (1985); United States v. Lieberman, 637 F.2d 95 (2d Cir.1980); United States v. Castillo, 615 F.2d 878 (9th Cir.1980). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. FCX, Inc.green1 sentence1993See United States v. Bibbero, 749 F.2d 581 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1103 , 105 S.Ct. 2330 , 85 L.Ed.2d 847 (1985); United States v. Lieberman, 637 F.2d 95 (2d Cir.1980); United States v. Castillo, 615 F.2d 878 (9th Cir.1980). | 1 | 1 |
Dugger v. Delta Airlinesgreen1 sentence1993See United States v. Bibbero, 749 F.2d 581 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1103 , 105 S.Ct. 2330 , 85 L.Ed.2d 847 (1985); United States v. Lieberman, 637 F.2d 95 (2d Cir.1980); United States v. Castillo, 615 F.2d 878 (9th Cir.1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lutwak v. United States
green
2 sentences1998Among the numerous other cases articulating this principle are Lutwak, 344 U.S. at 616-18 , 73 S.Ct. at 488-90 ; Krulewitch, 336 U.S. at 442-44 , 69 S.Ct. at 717-19 ; Fiswick, 329 U.S. at 217 , 67 S.Ct. at 227-28 ; and People v. Orr, 39 Colo.App. 289, 295 , 566 P.2d 1361, 1366 (1977). 7 . 1998Among the numerous other cases articulating this principle are Lutwak, 344 U.S. at 616-18 , 73 S.Ct. at 488-90 ; Krulewitch, 336 U.S. at 442-44 , 69 S.Ct. at 717-19 ; Fiswick, 329 U.S. at 217 , 67 S.Ct. at 227-28 ; and People v. Orr, 39 Colo.App. 289, 295 , 566 P.2d 1361, 1366 (1977). 7 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Fiswick v. United States
green
2 sentences1998Among the numerous other cases articulating this principle are Lutwak, 344 U.S. at 616-18 , 73 S.Ct. at 488-90 ; Krulewitch, 336 U.S. at 442-44 , 69 S.Ct. at 717-19 ; Fiswick, 329 U.S. at 217 , 67 S.Ct. at 227-28 ; and People v. Orr, 39 Colo.App. 289, 295 , 566 P.2d 1361, 1366 (1977). 7 . 1998Among the numerous other cases articulating this principle are Lutwak, 344 U.S. at 616-18 , 73 S.Ct. at 488-90 ; Krulewitch, 336 U.S. at 442-44 , 69 S.Ct. at 717-19 ; Fiswick, 329 U.S. at 217 , 67 S.Ct. at 227-28 ; and People v. Orr, 39 Colo.App. 289, 295 , 566 P.2d 1361, 1366 (1977). 7 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Grunewald v. United States
green
2 sentences1998Acts of concealment occur in every conspiracy case, see id. at 404 , 77 S.Ct. at 973-74 , and admission of hearsay statements on this basis would im-permissibly expand the narrow scope of the co-conspirator exception and further dilute the general prohibition against hearsay statements. 1998Acts of concealment occur in every conspiracy case, see id. at 404 , 77 S.Ct. at 973-74 , and admission of hearsay statements on this basis would im-permissibly expand the narrow scope of the co-conspirator exception and further dilute the general prohibition against hearsay statements. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
United States v. Inadi
green
2 sentences1998Technically, the co-conspirator rule is a hearsay exemption that renders co-conspirator statements nonhearsay, however, the rule is commonly referred to as a hearsay exception. 5 .Another rationale for the co-conspirator exception is that the live testimony of a co-conspirator is not necessarily the "better” version, because "[Conspirators are likely to speak differently when talking to each other in furtherance of their illegal aims than when testifying on the witness stand” and "it is extremely unlikely that in-court testimony will recapture the evidentiary significance of statements made wh 1998Technically, the co-conspirator rule is a hearsay exemption that renders co-conspirator statements nonhearsay, however, the rule is commonly referred to as a hearsay exception. 5 .Another rationale for the co-conspirator exception is that the live testimony of a co-conspirator is not necessarily the "better” version, because "[Conspirators are likely to speak differently when talking to each other in furtherance of their illegal aims than when testifying on the witness stand” and "it is extremely unlikely that in-court testimony will recapture the evidentiary significance of statements made wh | 1 | 1998–1998 |
United States v. Robert Castillo, Jr.
green
1 sentence1993See United States v. Bibbero, 749 F.2d 581 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1103 , 105 S.Ct. 2330 , 85 L.Ed.2d 847 (1985); United States v. Lieberman, 637 F.2d 95 (2d Cir.1980); United States v. Castillo, 615 F.2d 878 (9th Cir.1980). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
United States v. Myron Lieberman
green
1 sentence1993See United States v. Bibbero, 749 F.2d 581 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1103 , 105 S.Ct. 2330 , 85 L.Ed.2d 847 (1985); United States v. Lieberman, 637 F.2d 95 (2d Cir.1980); United States v. Castillo, 615 F.2d 878 (9th Cir.1980). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Montoya
green
1 sentence1993People v. Montoya, 753 P.2d 729 (Colo.1988). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Schlepp
green
2 sentences1988Both People v. Schlepp, 184 Colo. 28 , 518 P.2d 824 (1974), and People v. Braly, 187 Colo. 324 , 532 P.2d 325 (1975), proceeded from a common-law analysis of the co-conspirator exception to the rule against hearsay. 1988Both People v. Schlepp, 184 Colo. 28 , 518 P.2d 824 (1974), and People v. Braly, 187 Colo. 324 , 532 P.2d 325 (1975), proceeded from a common-law analysis of the co-conspirator exception to the rule against hearsay. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Braly
green
2 sentences1988Both People v. Schlepp, 184 Colo. 28 , 518 P.2d 824 (1974), and People v. Braly, 187 Colo. 324 , 532 P.2d 325 (1975), proceeded from a common-law analysis of the co-conspirator exception to the rule against hearsay. 1988Both People v. Schlepp, 184 Colo. 28 , 518 P.2d 824 (1974), and People v. Braly, 187 Colo. 324 , 532 P.2d 325 (1975), proceeded from a common-law analysis of the co-conspirator exception to the rule against hearsay. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Peltz
neutral
1 sentence1985People v. Peltz, 701 P.2d 98 (Colo.App.1984). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People v. Story
neutral
2 sentences1978Crim.P. 14; People v. Story, 182 Colo. 122 , 511 P.2d 492 (1973); see People v. Johnson, supra. The People argue, however, that the evidence was admissible against Gonzales under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule. 1978Crim.P. 14; People v. Story, 182 Colo. 122 , 511 P.2d 492 (1973); see People v. Johnson, supra. The People argue, however, that the evidence was admissible against Gonzales under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Smaldone v. People
green
2 sentences1977Reed v. People, 156 Colo. 450 , 402 P.2d 68 ; Smaldone v. People, 103 Colo. 498 , 88 P.2d 103 ; People v. Anders, Colo.App., 559 P.2d 239 . 1977Reed v. People, 156 Colo. 450 , 402 P.2d 68 ; Smaldone v. People, 103 Colo. 498 , 88 P.2d 103 ; People v. Anders, Colo.App., 559 P.2d 239 . | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Reed v. People
green
2 sentences1977Reed v. People, 156 Colo. 450 , 402 P.2d 68 ; Smaldone v. People, 103 Colo. 498 , 88 P.2d 103 ; People v. Anders, Colo.App., 559 P.2d 239 . 1977Reed v. People, 156 Colo. 450 , 402 P.2d 68 ; Smaldone v. People, 103 Colo. 498 , 88 P.2d 103 ; People v. Anders, Colo.App., 559 P.2d 239 . | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.