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.
4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 12 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Marc v. State.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Marc v. State Anchor | green | “without exception, testimonial statements of witnesses absent from trial are admissible over a sixth amendment confrontation clause objection only where the declarant is unavailable and the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.” | 3 |
| 2 | State v. Snowden | green | “formal or official statement made or elicited with the purpose of being introduced at a criminal trial.” | 3 |
| 3 | Hightower v. State | green | “recognized the importance of protecting young children from the turmoil associated with having to give testimony in a courtroom and has acted to eliminate or alleviate that trauma within the parameters of the constitution.” | 3 |
| 4 | Lagunas v. State | green | “the testimonial hearsay inquiry focuses on whether a reasonable declarant, similarly situated (that is, excited by the stress of the startling event), would have had the capacity to appreciate the legal ramifications of her statement.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.