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.
9 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 2,988 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 Crawford v. Washington.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Crawford v. Washington Anchor | green | “admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” | 667 |
| 2 | Crawford v. Washington | green | “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” | 567 |
| 3 | Davis v. Washington | green | “to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.” | 565 |
| 4 | Crawford v. Washington | green | “statements that were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial.” | 474 |
| 5 | Davis v. Washington | green | “statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency.” | 359 |
| 6 | Davis v. Washington | green | “it is the testimonial character of the statement that separates it from other hearsay that, while subject to traditional limitations upon hearsay evidence, is not subject to the confrontation clause.” | 119 |
| 7 | Michigan v. Bryant | green | “there may be other circumstances, aside from ongoing emergencies, when a statement is not procured with a primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.” | 110 |
| 8 | Michigan v. Bryant | green | “the relevant inquiry is not the subjective or actual purpose of the individuals involved in a particular encounter, but rather the purpose that reasonable participants would have had, as ascertained from the individuals' statements and actions and the circumstances in which the …” | 76 |
| 9 | Michigan v. Bryant | green | “objectively evaluate the circumstances in which the encounter occurs and the statements and actions of the parties.” | 51 |
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.