66 Cited authorities

Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,395 times 82 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "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"
Richardson v. Marsh
481 U.S. 200 (1987) Cited 3,776 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding codefendant’s confession that "was not incriminating on its face," but "became so only when linked with evidence introduced later at trial," to "fall outside" narrow Bruton exception
Bruton v. United States
391 U.S. 123 (1968) Cited 8,923 times 26 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause is violated when the court admits an incriminating out-of-court statement by a nontestifying codefendant
United States v. Wade
388 U.S. 218 (1967) Cited 8,065 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment provides the right to counsel at a postindictment lineup even though the Fifth Amendment is not implicated
Mapp v. Ohio
367 U.S. 643 (1961) Cited 8,289 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that the exclusionary rule under the Fourth Amendment applies to the States, and overruling the contrary rule of Wolf v. Colorado , 338 U.S. 25, 69 S.Ct. 1359, 93 L.Ed. 1782, after considering and rejecting "the current validity of the factual grounds upon which Wolf was based"
Jackson v. Denno
378 U.S. 368 (1964) Cited 5,135 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that trial judge must determine, at a separate hearing, that a confession is voluntary before it may be heard by a jury
Pointer v. Texas
380 U.S. 400 (1965) Cited 4,289 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that “the Sixth Amendment's right of an accused to confront the witnesses against him is likewise a fundamental right and is made obligatory on the States by the Fourteenth Amendment”
Gray v. Maryland
523 U.S. 185 (1998) Cited 873 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding confession redactions that obviously refer to defendant fall within Bruton ’s protective rule
Harrington v. California
395 U.S. 250 (1969) Cited 2,157 times
Holding that the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause violation in that case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore did not require the conviction to be overturned
Tennessee v. Street
471 U.S. 409 (1985) Cited 774 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that non-hearsay admissions do not raise "Confrontation Clause concerns"

The People, Appellant,v.Keith Johnson, Respondent.

66 Cited authorities

Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "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"

Holding codefendant’s confession that "was not incriminating on its face," but "became so only when linked with evidence introduced later at trial," to "fall outside" narrow Bruton exception

Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause is violated when the court admits an incriminating out-of-court statement by a nontestifying codefendant

Holding that the Sixth Amendment provides the right to counsel at a postindictment lineup even though the Fifth Amendment is not implicated

Holding that the exclusionary rule under the Fourth Amendment applies to the States, and overruling the contrary rule of Wolf v. Colorado , 338 U.S. 25, 69 S.Ct. 1359, 93 L.Ed. 1782, after considering and rejecting "the current validity of the factual grounds upon which Wolf was based"

Holding that trial judge must determine, at a separate hearing, that a confession is voluntary before it may be heard by a jury

Holding that “the Sixth Amendment's right of an accused to confront the witnesses against him is likewise a fundamental right and is made obligatory on the States by the Fourteenth Amendment”

Holding confession redactions that obviously refer to defendant fall within Bruton ’s protective rule

Holding that the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause violation in that case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore did not require the conviction to be overturned

Holding that non-hearsay admissions do not raise "Confrontation Clause concerns"