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.
Thursday, February 05, 2015
Reply brief in Clark
Ohio filed its reply brief in the Clark case yesterday. It will be argued on March 2.
I hope to be posting some additional commentary on the case at some point next week.
1 comment:
Anonymous
said...
In Duhs v. Capra, No. 13-CV-1056 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2015), Judge Jack Weinstein held that a child's statement to an emergency room doctor that the defendant held him in a tub causing burns were testimonial and granted a writ of habeas corpus. In doing so, Judge Weinstein distiguished Ohio v. Clark, and held that the N.Y. Court of Appeals application of the Crawford rule was objectively unreasonable.
1 comment:
In Duhs v. Capra, No. 13-CV-1056 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2015), Judge Jack Weinstein held that a child's statement to an emergency room doctor that the defendant held him in a tub causing burns were testimonial and granted a writ of habeas corpus. In doing so, Judge Weinstein distiguished Ohio v. Clark, and held that the N.Y. Court of Appeals application of the Crawford rule was objectively unreasonable.
Post a Comment