Citation network
Davis Vs. Washington
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 19, 2006
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Syllabus October Term, 2005 Davis V. WashingtonSearch
-
Hammon v. IndianaSearch
-
on certiorari to the Supreme Court of Indiana. Davis v. WashingtonSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Davis V. WashingtonSearch
-
s Confrontation Clause. I A The relevant statements in Davis v. WashingtonSearch
-
B In Hammon v. IndianaSearch
-
In Crawford v. WashingtonSearch
-
Confrontation Clause jurisprudence was carefully applied only in the testimonial context. See, e.g. , Reynolds v. UnitedSearch
-
Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Kirby v. UnitedSearch
-
Motes v. UnitedSearch
-
Dowdell v. UnitedSearch
-
under the Confrontation Clause). Even our later cases, conforming to the reasoning of Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
citing cases), with one arguable exception, see id. , at 58, n. 8 (discussing White v. IllinoisSearch
-
the statements at issue were clearly nontestimonial. See, e.g. , Bourjaily v. UnitedSearch
-
enough established by the severe consequences that can attend a deliberate falsehood. See, e.g., United States v. StewartSearch
-
State v. ReedSearch
-
that the dispatched officers might know whether they would be encountering a violent felon. See, e.g. , Hiibel v. SixthSearch
-
at trial, United States v. InadiSearch
-
s ex parte statements against her husband in King v. DinglerSearch
-
of a witness by pointing to English cases. None of them involves statements made during an ongoing emergency. In King v. BrasierSearch
-
not, however, vitiate constitutional guarantees when they have the effect of allowing the guilty to go free. Cf. Kyllo v. UnitedSearch
-
have generally held the Government to the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, see, e.g. , United States v. ScottSearch
-
F. 3d 758, 762 (CA7 2002). State courts tend to follow the same practice, see, e.g. , Commonwealth v. EdwardsSearch
-
of this opinion (and without deciding the point), we consider their acts to be acts of the police. As in Crawford v. WashingtonSearch
-
Footnote 3 See, e.g. , State v. WebbSearch
-
State v. AtkinsSearch
-
Johnston v. StateSearch
-
Finn v. CommonwealthSearch
-
State v. HillSearch
-
Commonwealth v. RichardsSearch
-
Bostick v. StateSearch
-
People v. NewmanSearch
-
State v. CampbellSearch
-
State v. ValentineSearch
-
Kendrick v. StateSearch
-
State v. HouserSearch
-
approach it is eminently arguable that the dissent should agree, rather than disagree, with our disposition in Hammon v. IndianaSearch
-
Clause to the precise forms against which it was originally directed is a recipe for its extinction. Cf. Kyllo v. UnitedSearch
-
testimonial statements are what they are. Davis v. WashingtonSearch
-
Opinion of Thomas, J. Davis V. WashingtonSearch
-
Justice Thomas, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. In Crawford v. WashingtonSearch
-
implicate the Confrontation Clause under an appropriately targeted standard, I concur only in the judgment in Davis v. WashingtonSearch
-
s resolution of Hammon v. IndianaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial