firmly rooted exception (District of Columbia) · Go Syfert
← District of Columbia issues

firmly rooted exception in District of Columbia

6 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2009 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by District of Columbia 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Ohio v. Robertsred
scotus · 1980 · cited in 2 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
2 sentences

2005Prior to Crawford, and under the regime of Roberts , any out-of-court statement was constitutionally admissible so long as it either fell within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule or bore “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Id. at 1369 (quoting Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 ).

2005Prior to Crawford, and under the regime of Roberts , any out-of-court statement was constitutionally admissible so long as it either fell within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule or bore “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Id. at 1369 (quoting Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 ).

12
Akins v. United Statesgreen
dc · 1996 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
2 sentences

2005See Akins, supra, 679 A.2d at 1030 .

2005See Akins, supra, 679 A.2d at 1030 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (1)

CaseNegativeCited
Brown v. Keanegreen
nysd · 2002 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004But see Brown v. Keane, 229 F.Supp.2d 298, 304-10 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (reviewing cases and concluding, “albeit not without hesitation,” that present sense impression exception is firmly rooted).

2004But see Brown v. Keane, 229 F.Supp.2d 298, 304-10 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (reviewing cases and concluding, "albeit not without hesitation," that present sense impression exception is firmly rooted).

11

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
White v. Illinois green
scotus · 1992
2 sentences

1996Furthermore, since the statements of Ms. Gibson had “sufficient guarantees of reliability to come within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule,” i.e., the excited utterance exception, the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment “is satisfied.” White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992).

1996Furthermore, since the statements of Ms. Gibson had “sufficient guarantees of reliability to come within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule,” i.e., the excited utterance exception, the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment “is satisfied.” White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992).

21996–2009
United States v. James Saget, Also Known as Hesh green
ca2 · 2004
1 sentence

2005The change effected by Crawford was concisely summarized in United States v. Saget, 377 F.3d 223 (2d Cir.2004): Crawford abrogates Roberts with respect to prior testimonial statements by holding that such statements may never be introduced against the defendant unless he or she had an opportunity to *806 cross-examine the declarant, regardless of whether that statement falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception or has particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.

12005–2005
Lilly v. Virginia green
scotus · 1999
1 sentence

2000The other two categories of statements against penal interest, specified in Lilly, supra, are those offered "(1) as voluntary admissions against the declarant; [and] (2) exculpatory evidence offered by a defendant who claims that the declarant committed, or was involved in, the offense.” Id. at 127 , 119 S.Ct. 1887 . 17 .

12000–2000

Statutes the citing opinions construe

DC § D.C. Code § 17-305 (3) DC § D.C. Code § 23-110 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

TX 47 (1987–2017) OH 30 (1992–2012) CA 22 (1993–2023) VA 21 (1996–2020) IL 20 (1989–2024) NM 17 (1996–2017) WA 17 (1998–2009) CO 17 (1993–2026) PA 15 (1990–2026) NC 14 (1994–2009) LA 12 (1995–2017) AL 12 (1994–2026) FL 11 (1988–2019) MO 11 (1898–2007) MN 10 (1991–2006) AZ 10 (1990–2003) GA 9 (1995–2011) MD 9 (1988–2016) CT 8 (1992–2010) MA 7 (1994–2025) WY 7 (1997–2022) TN 7 (2002–2010) DE 7 (1998–2017) SC 7 (1995–2006) IN 7 (1994–2010) WI 6 (1982–2002) MI 6 (1991–2020) DC 6 (1996–2009) KY 6 (2001–2006) OK 5 (1996–2014) IA 4 (1994–2005) SD 4 (1986–2000) MT 3 (2001–2006) WV 3 (1999–2003) HI 3 (1992–2018) ME 2 (1995–2003) ID 2 (1999–2001) MS 2 (2000–2004) OR 2 (1993–2000) KS 2 (2001–2005) NE 2 (1993–2000) AK 2 (1994–1994)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check