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.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Another cert grant: Williams v. Illinois
It appears that the next case in the Melendez-Diaz line will come very quickly. The Supreme Court granted cert today in Williams v. Illinois, No. 10-8505, seeking review of People v. Williams, 939 N.E.2d 268 (Ill. 2010). The case presents the issue of what I have called the "not for the truth" end-run in the context of expert evidence: The Illinois Supreme Court held that the absent analyst's report was introduced not for the truth of what it asserted but rather "to show the underlying facts and data [the in-court witness] used before rendering an expert opinion in this case." I will write something more substantive on this later.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Thank You.
I look forward to your thoughts. The tea leaves contained in Sotomayor's Bullcoming opinion don't give me a lot of hope (I'm a defense attorney). I recall reading Mr. Fisher's article on "not for the truth" in NACDL a couple of years back, and I have encouraged people to use the arguments contained therein. I'd hate for them to be shot down.
a bathing ape
kd 12 shoes
supreme clothing
pg 4
kobe byrant shoes
westbrook shoes
jordans
supreme outlet
air jordan
curry 8
Post a Comment