42 Cited authorities

Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,419 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 4,806 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"
Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts
557 U.S. 305 (2009) Cited 3,556 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that a certification that material seized by the police included cocaine was testimonial
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,494 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Delaware v. Van Arsdall
475 U.S. 673 (1986) Cited 7,285 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error
Bullcoming v. New Mexico
564 U.S. 647 (2011) Cited 1,549 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding a certification of the blood alcohol content of a sample to be testimonial
Ohio v. Roberts
448 U.S. 56 (1980) Cited 4,632 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that the question of good-faith effort is a question of reasonableness, and a prosecutor is not required to do a futile act
Davis v. Alaska
415 U.S. 308 (1974) Cited 5,692 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that this confrontation right is applicable to state and federal defendants alike
Chambers v. Mississippi
410 U.S. 284 (1973) Cited 5,980 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that the application of the rule against hearsay to exclude exculpatory testimony violated the defendant's right to present a complete defense because the testimony was reliable
Williams v. Illinois
567 U.S. 50 (2012) Cited 980 times
Holding that a DNA matching process is not testimonial

PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

42 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 that a certification that material seized by the police included cocaine was testimonial

Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error

Holding a certification of the blood alcohol content of a sample to be testimonial

Holding that the question of good-faith effort is a question of reasonableness, and a prosecutor is not required to do a futile act

Holding that this confrontation right is applicable to state and federal defendants alike

Holding that the application of the rule against hearsay to exclude exculpatory testimony violated the defendant's right to present a complete defense because the testimony was reliable

Holding that a DNA matching process is not testimonial