This blog is devoted to reporting and commenting on developments related to Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). Crawford transformed the doctrine of the Confrontation Clause, but it left many open questions that are, and will continue to be, the subject of a great deal of litigation and academic commentary.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Respondent's Brief in Briscoe
The Commonwealth of Virginia has just filed its brief in Briscoe v. Virginia. You can read it by clicking here. The reply brief is due November 25, and I believe the argument will likely be held on January 11.
OK, Prof. Friedman can't really speak to this, but maybe someone else can: Briscoe looks like a pretty straightforward case, so I'm trying to figure out what I'm missing.
Virginia has a notice & demand statute, saying that if the govt intends to introduce "certificate" evidence at trial, it has to tell the defendant in advance. If D is going to object, it must be before trial -- and if there's a timely objection, it's still on the govt to produce the analyst. If D does not timely object (as here), that waives the Confrontation right, and the cert itself is admissible.
Scalia already said at least the "simplest form" of N&D statutes were constitutionally valid. And Sotomayor already approved the broadest reading of "testimonial," in her only published Crawford decision.
So it looks like Briscoe is going to be about the acceptability & limits of N&D statutes -- not reversing M-D, or anything similarly extreme. Unless I'm missing something. Am I?
*untuk deposit pulsa kami menerima provider -XL -Telkomsel
untuk bonus yang kami miliki kami memiliki *bonus cashback 0,5% *bunus refferal 20% *bonus gebiar bulanan (N-max,samsung Note 10+,Iphone xr 64G,camera go pro 7hero,Apple airpods 2 ,dan freechips)
Daftar Langsung Di:
SENTANAPOKER
Kontak Kami;
WA : +855 9647 76509 Line : SentanaPoker Wechat : SentanaPokerLivechat Sentanapoker
Proses deposit dan withdraw tercepat bisa anda rasakan jika bermain di Sentanapoker. So… ? tunggu apa lagi ? Mari bergabung dengan kami. Pelayanan CS yang ramah dan Proffesional dan pastinya sangat aman juga bisa anda dapatkan di Sentanapoker.
2 comments:
OK, Prof. Friedman can't really speak to this, but maybe someone else can: Briscoe looks like a pretty straightforward case, so I'm trying to figure out what I'm missing.
Virginia has a notice & demand statute, saying that if the govt intends to introduce "certificate" evidence at trial, it has to tell the defendant in advance.
If D is going to object, it must be before trial -- and if there's a timely objection, it's still on the govt to produce the analyst.
If D does not timely object (as here), that waives the Confrontation right, and the cert itself is admissible.
Scalia already said at least the "simplest form" of N&D statutes were constitutionally valid.
And Sotomayor already approved the broadest reading of "testimonial," in her only published Crawford decision.
So it looks like Briscoe is going to be about the acceptability & limits of N&D statutes -- not reversing M-D, or anything similarly extreme.
Unless I'm missing something. Am I?
Haloo pak^^
Kami dari SENTANAPOKER ingin menawarkan pak^^
Untuk saat ini kami menerima Deposit Melalui Pulsa ya pak.
*untuk minimal deposit 10ribu
*untuk minimal Withdraw 25ribu
*untuk deposit pulsa kami menerima provider
-XL
-Telkomsel
untuk bonus yang kami miliki kami memiliki
*bonus cashback 0,5%
*bunus refferal 20%
*bonus gebiar bulanan (N-max,samsung Note 10+,Iphone xr 64G,camera go pro 7hero,Apple airpods 2 ,dan freechips)
Daftar Langsung Di:
SENTANAPOKER
Kontak Kami;
WA : +855 9647 76509
Line : SentanaPoker
Wechat : SentanaPokerLivechat Sentanapoker
Proses deposit dan withdraw tercepat bisa anda rasakan jika bermain di Sentanapoker. So… ? tunggu apa lagi ? Mari bergabung dengan kami. Pelayanan CS yang ramah dan Proffesional dan pastinya sangat aman juga bisa anda dapatkan di Sentanapoker.
Post a Comment