Articles Posted in crawford v. washington

Now that the current slew of confrontation cases are decided it’s time to regroup. Let’s start with my former evidence professor, Paul Gianelli (a former Army JA). Confrontation, Experts, and Rule 703 Paul C. Giannelli Case Western Reserve University – School of Law 20 J.L. & Pol’y 443 (2012) Case Legal Studies Research Paper No.…

Professor Friedman has posted the States’ amicus brief in Bullcoming v. New Mexico, along with some rather trenchant dissection of their sky-is-falling and we-are-the-government arguments.

Prof. Friedman links to the respondents’s brief in Bullcoming v. New Mexico.

You may be familiar with the quote: In every case involving [state your poison], we are confronted with relativity and the degree to which such conduct may have affected the substantial rights of the defendant. It is better to follow the rules than to try to undo what has been done. Otherwise stated, one ‘Cannot…

Here is an observation by federalevidence.com: One issue raised by the new case concerns whether a majority of the Court still supports the Confrontation Clause analysis established under Crawford v. Washington in 2004, and Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts in 2009. Two Justices who voted in the majority (John Paul Stevens and David H. Souter) have since…

United States v. Blazier was argued at CAAF and you can hear the oral argument at this link. The U. S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Bullcoming v. New Mexico. Courtesy of CAAFLog here is the granted issue: Whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst…

Here is Professor Friedman’s post about Briscoe. The Virginia Supreme Court today issued its decision in Briscoe on remand from the United States Supreme Court. . The court held that the former Virginia statutory scheme (under which the defendant had to call a lab analyst as his witness if he wanted to examine the analyst)…

In two days CAAF has granted two urinalysis cases citing to Melendez-Diaz. Note Blazier is still undecided. In the Air Force case the defense did not object, in the Navy case the defense did object. No. 10-0668/AF. U.S. v. Jerrod D. NUTT. CCA S31600. Review granted on the following issues: WHETHER, UNDER MELENDEZ-DIAZ v. MASACHUSETTS,…

Professor Friedman alerts that two amicus briefs have been filed. The link to his brief does not work, but the one to NACDL does. As a reminder the QP is: Whether statements to investigating police officers accusing someone of a crime and describing the offense after it has been completed fall outside the scope of…

The respondent in Michigan v. Bryant has filed his brief and is found here courtesy of Professor Friedman (who indicates a likely amicus filing on his part). Here is the QP: Whether preliminary inquiries of a wounded citizen concerning the perpetrator and circumstances of the shooting are nontestimonial because they were “made under circumstances objectively…