§Why CasetextPricing

Washington v. Griffin

MEMORANDUM & ORDER: The petitioner's petition is DENIED for the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum and Order. However, because Washington has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The issue certified for appeal is whether the Second Departments decision denying Washingtons Confrontation Clause claim was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law as determined

11 Cited authorities

  1. Harrington v. Richter

    562 U.S. 86 (2011)   Cited 26,467 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that AEDPA deference applies even when state court issues summary ruling

  2. Crawford v. Washington

    541 U.S. 36 (2004)   Cited 17,454 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"

  3. Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts

    557 U.S. 305 (2009)   Cited 3,562 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a certification that material seized by the police included cocaine was testimonial

  4. Michigan v. Bryant

    562 U.S. 344 (2011)   Cited 1,591 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statements made to police concerning an ongoing emergency are not testimonial

  5. Bullcoming v. New Mexico

    564 U.S. 647 (2011)   Cited 1,553 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding a certification of the blood alcohol content of a sample to be testimonial

  6. Ohio v. Roberts

    448 U.S. 56 (1980)   Cited 4,637 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

  7. United States v. James

    712 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2013)   Cited 217 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statement providing information as to status of conspiracy can be in furtherance thereof

  8. People v. Washington

    108 A.D.3d 576 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 31 times

    2013-07-3 The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Kenneth WASHINGTON, appellant. Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan M. Kratter of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Sharon Y. Brodt, and Jennifer Hagan of counsel), for respondent. REINALDO E. RIVERA Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan M. Kratter of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John

  9. People v. Washington

    4 N.E.3d 979 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 2 times

    2014-01-31 People v. Kenneth Washington Pigott 2d Dept.: 108 A.D.3d 576, 968 N.Y.S.2d 184 (Queens) Pigott, J. Denied.

  10. Section 2254 - State custody; remedies in Federal courts

    28 U.S.C. § 2254   Cited 204,977 times   341 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"

  11. Section 2253 - Appeal

    28 U.S.C. § 2253   Cited 115,226 times   58 Legal Analyses
    Conditioning the taking of an appeal on the issuance of a "certificate of appealability"