prior-testimony

5 cases — ← All topics

Case Title Lower Court Docketed Status Flags Tags Question Presented
25-336 Elsie Franklin v. Kentucky Kentucky 2025-09-23 Denied adequate-opportunity confrontation-clause criminal-procedure cross-examination evidence-standard prior-testimony In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), this Court held that, under the Confrontation Clause, an unavailable witness's prior testimony "is admi…
21-576 Benjamin Forrest Carter v. Virginia Virginia 2021-10-20 Denied Response Waived confrontation-clause constitutional-violation criminal-procedure hearsay hearsay-testimony judicial-error prior-testimony remedy sixth-amendment Whether the Supreme Court of Virginia erred in affirming the defendant's convictions where the Circuit Court erred in admitting victim-witness hearsay…
21-5488 John Patrick Blackmon v. Jeffrey A. Uttecht, Warden Ninth Circuit 2021-08-26 Denied Response WaivedIFP criminal-procedure defendant-rights due-process exceptional-circumstances habeas-corpus judicial-inquiry prior-testimony right-to-testify testimony-waiver trial-procedure waiver Did events in the second trial establish additional process due the Defendant in any subsequent trial?
19-7097 Juan Sanchez v. California California 2019-12-30 Denied IFP confrontation-clause criminal-procedure cross-examination due-process out-of-court-statements prior-testimony testimonial-statements trial-evidence witness-memory witness-testimony Whether a defendant in a criminal case is denied the opportunity for full and effective cross-examination in violation of the Confrontation Clause
19-6509 William Gaudet v. United States First Circuit 2019-11-06 Denied Response WaivedIFP 18-usc-2423(a) appeals-court appellate-review conviction criminal-sentencing district-court evidence-exclusion evidence-rule-403 federal-rules-of-evidence federal-sentencing-guidelines judgment-of-acquittal motion-in-limine prior-testimony sentencing standard-of-review whether-the-appeals-court-erred-in-upholding-the-d Whether the appeals court erred in upholding the district court's denial of the petitioner's motion in limine