18 Cited authorities

  1. Crawford v. Washington

    541 U.S. 36 (2004)   Cited 16,267 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"
  2. Davis v. Washington

    547 U.S. 813 (2006)   Cited 4,404 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"
  3. Schriro v. Summerlin

    542 U.S. 348 (2004)   Cited 2,117 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[n]ew substantive rules generally apply retroactively"
  4. Richardson v. Marsh

    481 U.S. 200 (1987)   Cited 3,572 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
  5. Bruton v. United States

    391 U.S. 123 (1968)   Cited 8,594 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant's Confrontation Clause rights are violated when a non-testifying codefendant's confession implicating the defendant in the crime is introduced at their joint trial
  6. Jackson v. Denno

    378 U.S. 368 (1964)   Cited 5,034 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
  7. Lilly v. Virginia

    527 U.S. 116 (1999)   Cited 1,097 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"
  8. Morgan v. Illinois

    504 U.S. 719 (1992)   Cited 1,353 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
  9. Pointer v. Texas

    380 U.S. 400 (1965)   Cited 4,169 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”
  10. Giles v. California

    554 U.S. 353 (2008)   Cited 718 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that prior testimony is admissible if the witness is unavailable and the defense had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness on this prior testimony