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 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1983–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York 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 |
|---|---|---|
BNY Financial Corp. v. Marlowgreen1 sentence2015In Wesley M., the Court reached the same conclusion where there was “no indication” that the person who signed a laboratory report was actually the individual who had tested the drugs (83 NY2d at 900). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2011However, the admission in evidence of reports evincing the results of DNA testing performed on DNA samples recovered from a defendant and other sources, without producing the person who performed the analysis, does not violate the Confrontation Clause (Brown at 340 ; Rawlins at 158-159 ; People v Thompson, 70 AD3d 866, 866 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 757 [2010]). 2011However, the admission in evidence of reports evincing the results of DNA testing performed on DNA samples recovered from a defendant and other sources, without producing the person who performed the analysis, does not violate the Confrontation Clause (Brown at 340 ; Rawlins at 158-159 ; People v Thompson, 70 AD3d 866, 866 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 757 [2010]). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Godshalkgreen1 sentence2005(See Godshalk, 381 NJ Super at 333, 885 A2d at 973 [distinguishing Shiver].) In this state, except for Orpin , there are no other reported decisions excluding this type of documentary evidence on Crawford grounds. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washington
green
1 sentence2012Concerning calibration reports for breath testing instruments, these documents can be admitted at trial without live testimony from the person who performed the test, with no violation of the Confrontation Clause (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]). . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Rawlins
green
1 sentence2012The Encamación court, citing examples of what are and are not Confrontation Clause violations explained that a Confrontation Clause violation would occur by the admission in evidence of reports evincing the results of fingerprint analysis performed on a defendant’s fingerprints and those recovered at the scene of a crime, without producing the person who performed the analysis (citing People v Rawlins, 10 NY3d 136 [2008]). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Porter
green
1 sentence1983(People v Porter, 46 AD2d 307 .) In that case, Chief Judge Cooke, then writing for the Appellate Division, Third Department, stated that the possibility that the person performing the test may not have been properly qualified or may have performed the test erroneously affects only the weight to be given to such evidence, not its admissibility. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.