6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania 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 |
|---|---|---|
California v. Greenred2 sentences2010L.Rev. 1378 (1972). ... [HJowever state law might formally characterize the questioning of [the witness], it afforded “substantial compliance with the purposes behind the confrontation requirement,” [California v.] Green, 399 U.S. [149,] 166 [90 S.Ct. 1930, 26 L.Ed.2d 489 ] [ (1970) ], no less so than classic cross-examination. 2010L.Rev. 1378 (1972). ... [HJowever state law might formally characterize the questioning of [the witness], it afforded “substantial compliance with the purposes behind the confrontation requirement,” [California v.] Green, 399 U.S. [149,] 166 [90 S.Ct. 1930, 26 L.Ed.2d 489 ] [ (1970) ], no less so than classic cross-examination. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Barber v. Page
green
2 sentences2024The viability of this exception “has been explained as arising from necessity and has been justified on the ground that the right of cross- examination initially afforded provides substantial compliance with the purposes behind the confrontation requirement.” Barber, 390 U.S. at 722 . 2024The viability of this exception “has been explained as arising from necessity and has been justified on the ground that the right of cross- examination initially afforded provides substantial compliance with the purposes behind the confrontation requirement.” Barber, 390 U.S. at 722 . | 4 | 1975–2024 |
Pointer v. Texas
green
2 sentences1977This is especially true where the prior testimony was given in the presence of the accused and the witness was subject to cross-examination. “[T]he right of cross-examination then afforded provides substantial compliance with the purposes behind the confrontation requirement . ” California v. Green, supra, 399 U.S. at 166 , 90 S.Ct. at 1939 ; Mancusi v. Stubbs, supra; Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 722 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968) ; Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 407 , 85 S.Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965); Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 , 15 S.Ct. 337 , 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895). 1977This is especially true where the prior testimony was given in the presence of the accused and the witness was subject to cross-examination. “[T]he right of cross-examination then afforded provides substantial compliance with the purposes behind the confrontation requirement . ” California v. Green, supra, 399 U.S. at 166 , 90 S.Ct. at 1939 ; Mancusi v. Stubbs, supra; Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 722 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968) ; Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 407 , 85 S.Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965); Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 , 15 S.Ct. 337 , 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895). | 2 | 1975–1977 |
Ohio v. Roberts
red
2 sentences2010Id., at 70-71, 100 S.Ct. 2531 (emphasis in original). 2010Id., at 70-71, 100 S.Ct. 2531 (emphasis in original). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Mattox v. United States
green
2 sentences1977This is especially true where the prior testimony was given in the presence of the accused and the witness was subject to cross-examination. “[T]he right of cross-examination then afforded provides substantial compliance with the purposes behind the confrontation requirement . ” California v. Green, supra, 399 U.S. at 166 , 90 S.Ct. at 1939 ; Mancusi v. Stubbs, supra; Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 722 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968) ; Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 407 , 85 S.Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965); Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 , 15 S.Ct. 337 , 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895). 1977This is especially true where the prior testimony was given in the presence of the accused and the witness was subject to cross-examination. “[T]he right of cross-examination then afforded provides substantial compliance with the purposes behind the confrontation requirement . ” California v. Green, supra, 399 U.S. at 166 , 90 S.Ct. at 1939 ; Mancusi v. Stubbs, supra; Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 722 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968) ; Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 407 , 85 S.Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965); Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 , 15 S.Ct. 337 , 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
West v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences1977At common law, the state had the right to take and use depositions of unavailable witnesses if certain prerequisites were met: “the right existed to read a deposition upon the trial of the defendant, if such deposition had been taken when the defendant was present and when the defendant’s counsel had had an opportunity to cross-examine, upon proof being made to the satisfaction of the court that the witness was at the time of the trial dead, insane, too ill ever to be expected to attend the trial, or kept away by the connivance of the defendant.” West v. Louisiana, 194 U.S. 258 , 24 S.Ct. 650 1977At common law, the state had the right to take and use depositions of unavailable witnesses if certain prerequisites were met: “the right existed to read a deposition upon the trial of the defendant, if such deposition had been taken when the defendant was present and when the defendant’s counsel had had an opportunity to cross-examine, upon proof being made to the satisfaction of the court that the witness was at the time of the trial dead, insane, too ill ever to be expected to attend the trial, or kept away by the connivance of the defendant.” West v. Louisiana, 194 U.S. 258 , 24 S.Ct. 650 | 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.