Tennessee v. Street

2 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Confrontation

    Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.Don SamuelSeptember 1, 2015

    Informing the jury about the co-conspirator’s statement that implicated the defendant violated the defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause and required setting aside the conviction. See Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409 (1985) (approving use of co-conspirator’s statement in this manner, but only with a limiting instruction).Perkins v. Herbert, 596 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2010)The state trial court concluded that the defendant procured a witness’s unavailability and therefore, the hearsay statement of the witness was admissible.

  2. Confrontation – Expert Testimony

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderJune 22, 2012

    But both the Illinois Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court found that this statement was not admitted for the truth of the matter asserted, and it is settled that the Confrontation Clause does not bar the admission of such statements. See id., at 59–60, n. 9 (citing Tennessee v. Street, 471 U. S. 409 (1985) ). …We now conclude that this form of expert testimony does not violate the Confrontation Clause because that provision has no application to out-of-court statements that are not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. When an expert testifies for the prosecution in a criminal case, the defendant has the opportunity to cross-examine the expert about any statements that are offered for their truth.