CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Hearsay
......Confrontation
.........Criminal-Federal Cases
............Out-of-Court Statements
 23 Cards On This Topic:
  • As primary purpose of police questioning of wounded V was to assist in ongoing emergency, V's I.D. and description of shooter and shooting's location were not testimonial, and admission did not violate Confront. Clause.
  • Admission of state lab. analysts' certificates, reporting analysis of material seized from D showed it was cocaine, violated D's confrontation rights.
  • V’s statements to 911 operator not testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes; "testimonial" defined.
  • Using Wife’s statements at D’s trial violated Confrontation Clause: Where testimonial stmts at issue, only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands (6th Amend.) is actual confrontation and opportunity to cross-examine.
  • Where testimonial evidence is at issue, Sixth Amendment demands what common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
  • Unavailability not required for spontaneous declaration testimony; "firmly rooted" exception to hearsay rule satisfies confrontation clause.
  • Prelim transcript of unavailable witness for rebuttal is not denial of confrontation.
  • Prelim testimony admitted at trial as prior inconsistent statements constitutes no denial of confrontation rights.
  • Admission of hearsay statements with indicia of reliability not denial of confrontation rights.
  • Prohibiting presentation of defense on hearsay grounds may be denial of confrontation rights.
  • Reliable hearsay excluded during death penalty phase violates due process rights.
  • Admission of co-conspirator's statement is not denial of confrontation rights.
  • Admission of co-conspirator's statements not denial of confrontation.
  • Child V's hearsay statements admissible only if statements bear particularized guarantees of trustworthiness without consideration of corroboration.
  • Admission of previous owner's statement in Notice of Transfer and DMV Printout that she sold car seized for narcotics smuggling to D, after she found out about the seizure, violated D's rights under the Confrontation Clause.
  • While admitting photos of seized package did not violate Confrontation Clause, admission of nontestifying PO supervisor’s statements about the package did, requiring reversal of MJ possession conviction.
  • As court admitted the critical substance of W's testimonial statements against D, and D had no opportunity to cross-examine him, D's confrontation right was violated and habeas relief warranted.
  • Abuser's habeas petition properly denied where child/victim's interview stmts, which contradicted prelim. hrg testimony, admissible at trial as they bore "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness."
  • Court erred in excluding shooter's statements to law enforcement exculpating D where statements reliable, had strong trustworthiness indicators and were crucial to D's defense.
  • D's Confrontation Clause rights violated by admission of presumptively unreliable tape-recorded statements of his co-Ds implicating him in murder.
  • Admitting co-D's self-inculpatory extrajudicial statement fell within firmly rooted exception to hearsay rule, and did not involve unreasonable application of controlling Fed. Confrontation Clause law.
  • Admitting 4 yr. old sexual abuse V's videotaped testimony did not violate D's rights to confrontation and due process.
  • Admission of videotaped interview of nontestifying 2 1/2 year old re alleged abuse constitutes gross denial of D's Confrontation Clause rights.


    •