Confront/Cross-exam Archives | Page 4 of 20

Categories: Areas Constitutional Law, Confront/Cross-exam, Evidence, Expert Witness, Gang Affiliation, Present a Defense

Summary

Gang expert testimony that included statements made by nontestifying gang members during custodial interrogation violated the confrontation clause. Edwards and a group of friends from East Palo Alto drove to a house party in San Jose. An argument broke out…

View Full Summary

Name: People v. Foalima

Case #: C071581

Opinion Date: 08/31/2015

Categories: Areas Constitutional Law, Confront/Cross-exam, Restitution, Sentencing

Summary

Defendant was not denied opportunity to confront and cross-examine a witness even though the witness testified he would not know the answer to any defense questions. During Foalima's trial for murder, arson, and robbery, the prosecution called one of Foalima's…

View Full Summary

Name: People v. Andrade

Case #: A135438

Opinion Date: 07/24/2015

Categories: Areas Constitutional Law, By CALCRIM Number, Confront/Cross-exam, Defense /SODDI Defense, Double Punishment (PC 654), Evidence, General Principles, Indeterminate Sentencing, Jury Instructions, Sentencing

Summary

Trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding proffered third-party culpability evidence that similar police poser rapes continued to occur after defendant's arrest. Five different women, including three who were working as prostitutes, identified Andrade as the man who…

View Full Summary

Name: Carlson v. Attorney General of the State of Calif

Case #: 13-16535

Opinion Date: 06/26/2015

Categories: Areas Constitutional Law, Confront/Cross-exam, Extraordinary Remedies, Habeas Corpus (Federal)

Summary

State court decision that defendant forfeited his right of confrontation by wrongdoing was not objectively unreasonable. Carlson was prosecuted for striking his son on the face (Pen. Code, § 273a, subdivision (b)). When the case went to trial, Carlson's son…

View Full Summary

Name: Ohio v. Clark

Case #: 13-1352

Opinion Date: 06/18/2015

Categories: Areas Constitutional Law, Confront/Cross-exam

Summary

Child's statement to a teacher that identified child's abuser did not implicate the confrontation clause. While Clark's girlfriend was out of town, Clark watched her two childrenL.P., a three-year-old boy and A.T., an 18-month-old girl. When L.P.'s preschool teachers questioned…

View Full Summary

Name: United States v. Esparza

Case #: 13-50033

Opinion Date: 06/29/2015

Categories: Areas Constitutional Law, Confront/Cross-exam

Summary

Statement in California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) documents was testimonial hearsay and its admission violated the defendant's confrontation rights. A car driven by defendant was detained at the San Ysidro border crossing after a narcotics dog alerted to the…

View Full Summary

Name: People v. Ford

Case #: A137422

Opinion Date: 04/07/2015

Categories: Admitting/Excluding, Areas Constitutional Law, Chain of Custody, Confront/Cross-exam, Evidence, Expert Witness

Summary

Admission into evidence of redacted 1981 autopsy report in murder prosecution does not violate the defendant's confrontation rights despite absent pathologist. In 2003 Ford was linked to the 1981 rape-murder of Annie Barcelon via DNA evidence collected at the scene…

View Full Summary

Name: People v. Espinoza

Case #: H039219

Opinion Date: 01/28/2015

Categories: Areas Constitutional Law, Confront/Cross-exam, Due Process, Present a Defense, Right Against Self-incrim

Summary

Conviction of voluntarily absent pro se defendant is reversed where his trial proceeded without appointment of counsel or a knowing and voluntary waiver of fundamental trial rights. Appellant was charged with numerous offenses after an altercation with his roommate led…

View Full Summary

Name: People v. Murillo

Case #: B246522

Opinion Date: 11/13/2014

Categories: Areas Constitutional Law, Confront/Cross-exam, Mistrial, Presentation of Evidence, Trial Proceedings

Summary

Trial court should have granted a mistrial where prosecution asked over 100 leading questions of a witness who refused to testify. During Murillo's trial for first degree murder, the prosecution called Valencia, an eyewitness who had identified Murillo as the…

View Full Summary

Name: U.S. v. Vera

Case #: 12-50294

Opinion Date: 10/22/2014

Categories: Areas Constitutional Law, Confront/Cross-exam, Evidence, Expert Witness

Summary

Gang expert's testimony did not violate defendants' confrontation clause rights because his opinion was developed by applying his experience and methodology and was not merely a conduit for testimonial hearsay. Defendants were convicted of federal drug offenses. On appeal they…

View Full Summary