18 Cited authorities

Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,394 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"
Davis v. Washington
547 U.S. 813 (2006) Cited 4,794 times 32 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements made "in the course of police interrogation" are testimonial when made under "circumstances objectively indicat[ing] ... that the primary purpose of the interrogation [was] to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution"
Schriro v. Summerlin
542 U.S. 348 (2004) Cited 2,205 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding "[n]ew substantive rules generally apply retroactively"
Richardson v. Marsh
481 U.S. 200 (1987) Cited 3,774 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 8,922 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
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
Lilly v. Virginia
527 U.S. 116 (1999) Cited 1,127 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements against penal interest "are suspect insofar as they inculpate other persons" and that "the absence of a promise of leniency to [a declarant] does not enhance his statement's reliability to the level necessary for their untested admission"
Giles v. California
554 U.S. 353 (2008) Cited 813 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that exception applies "only when the defendant engaged in conduct designed to prevent the witness from testifying"
Morgan v. Illinois
504 U.S. 719 (1992) Cited 1,434 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that an adequate voir dire requires a defendant to be able to determine whether a juror would automatically vote for the death penalty
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”

PEOPLE v. CAPISTRANO

18 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 that statements made "in the course of police interrogation" are testimonial when made under "circumstances objectively indicat[ing] ... that the primary purpose of the interrogation [was] to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution"

Holding "[n]ew substantive rules generally apply retroactively"

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

Holding that statements against penal interest "are suspect insofar as they inculpate other persons" and that "the absence of a promise of leniency to [a declarant] does not enhance his statement's reliability to the level necessary for their untested admission"

Holding that exception applies "only when the defendant engaged in conduct designed to prevent the witness from testifying"

Holding that an adequate voir dire requires a defendant to be able to determine whether a juror would automatically vote for the death penalty

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”