Articles Posted in crawford

The CAAF held that there is no right of confrontation at sentencing. The other rules do apply, such as hearsay, unless you relax the rules (something I rarely if ever do). United States v. McDonald, 55 M.J. 173 (C.A.A.F. 2001); United States v. George, 52 M.J. 259 (C.A.A.F. 2000). The question in the title of…

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.…

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…

CAAFLog advises that Pendergrass v. Indiana, No. 09-866, is scheduled for the 10 June case conference at the Supremes. Here courtesy of Prof. Freidman counsel for Pendergrass and also of Melendez-Diaz and Briscoe “fame,” is the Pendergrass cert petition. Here also is the state of Indiana’s brief in opposition to certiorari at this link. The…

We’ve spent a lot of time over the last months addressing Crawford issues in the context of forensic reports. Let’s not forget that there are some exceptions to Crawford and confrontation. Professor Colin Miller writes about the co-conspirator “exception” to Crawford. In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the Supreme Court held that the…

On habeas review of state court convictions, the detective’s trial testimony about the statements of two non-testifying co-actors which implicated the defendant in the shooting and which were used to confront the defendant during his interview violated the Confrontation Clause and constituted plain error, in Ray v. Boatwright, _ F.3d _ (No. 08-2825).

Thanks to Professor Colin Miller for this piece. In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court recently found that certificates of state laboratory analysts are “testimonial” and thus covered by the Confrontation Clause. Thus, if the forensic analysts (or similar experts) who prepared such certificates (or similar documents) do not testify at a criminal defendant’s trial,…

United States v. Blazier. Here are the relevant portions of the opinion written by Judge Ryan for the moment. This case presents the question whether the admission of drug testing reports” over defense objection violated Appellant’s rights under the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. The antecedent question, whether certain admitted evidence was testimonial, we answer affirmatively,…

On habeas review of state court convictions, the detective’s trial testimony about the statements of two non-testifying co-actors which implicated the defendant in the shooting and which were used to confront the defendant during his interview violated the Confrontation Clause and constituted plain error, in Ray v. Boatwright, _ F.3d _ (No. 08-2825). Since Crawford…

Here is a link to the full cert petition in Pendergrass v. Indiana. The question presented is: Whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst through the in-court testimony of a supervisor or other person who did not perform or observe the laboratory analysis described in the…