Hindman & Lanzon Hindman & Lanzon
Call for a Free Consultation
865-223-6450

Posts tagged "Confrontation"

Violation of Right to Confront Witnesses Was Harmless Error

The right to confront witnesses in a criminal case is guaranteed by both the United States and Tennessee Constitutions. But violation of the right to confront witnesses does not necessarily invalidate a criminal conviction if the error is determined to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In the recent Tennessee case of State v. Clark, M2012-01744-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. 11-21-13), the Court of Criminal Appeals determined the State violated confrontation rights by allowing the use of a video recorded deposition rather than a live witness at trial (absent 'extraordinary circumstances' which would have allowed the substitution of the deposition). However, the Court found the error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Violation of Right to Confront Witnesses Was Harmless Error

The right to confront witnesses in a criminal case is guaranteed by both the United States and Tennessee Constitutions. But violation of the right to confront witnesses does not necessarily invalidate a criminal conviction if the error is determined to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In the recent Tennessee case of State v. Clark, M2012-01744-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. 11-21-13), the Court of Criminal Appeals determined the State violated confrontation rights by allowing the use of a video recorded deposition rather than a live witness at trial (absent 'extraordinary circumstances' which would have allowed the substitution of the deposition). However, the Court found the error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Violation of Right to Confront Witnesses Was Harmless Error

The right to confront witnesses in a criminal case is guaranteed by both the United States and Tennessee Constitutions. But violation of the right to confront witnesses does not necessarily invalidate a criminal conviction if the error is determined to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In the recent Tennessee case of State v. Clark, M2012-01744-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. 11-21-13), the Court of Criminal Appeals determined the State violated confrontation rights by allowing the use of a video recorded deposition rather than a live witness at trial (absent 'extraordinary circumstances' which would have allowed the substitution of the deposition). However, the Court found the error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Significant Win for the Defense on a Confrontation Clause Issue

The Constitution gives us the right to confront our accusers in a criminal case. In practical terms, this means that witnesses offering testimonial evidence against us in a criminal case must appear in court and be subject to cross-examination. The rule is the subject of much legal argument and a number of exceptions (such as whether the evidence is testimonial, whether the witness is available, and whether there has been a previous opportunity to cross-examine the witness). In the recent case of Bullcoming v. new Mexico, 09-10876 (U.S. 6-23-2011), the U.S. Supreme Court, reversing the Supreme Court of New Mexico, held that a forensic lab report in a DWI case was subject to challenge under the Confrontation Clause and inadmissible when the lab technician who created the report did not testify.

Significant Win for the Defense on a Confrontation Clause Issue

The Constitution gives us the right to confront our accusers in a criminal case. In practical terms, this means that witnesses offering testimonial evidence against us in a criminal case must appear in court and be subject to cross-examination. The rule is the subject of much legal argument and a number of exceptions (such as whether the evidence is testimonial, whether the witness is available, and whether there has been a previous opportunity to cross-examine the witness). In the recent case of Bullcoming v. new Mexico, 09-10876 (U.S. 6-23-2011), the U.S. Supreme Court, reversing the Supreme Court of New Mexico, held that a forensic lab report in a DWI case was subject to challenge under the Confrontation Clause and inadmissible when the lab technician who created the report did not testify.

Significant Win for the Defense on a Confrontation Clause Issue

The Constitution gives us the right to confront our accusers in a criminal case. In practical terms, this means that witnesses offering testimonial evidence against us in a criminal case must appear in court and be subject to cross-examination. The rule is the subject of much legal argument and a number of exceptions (such as whether the evidence is testimonial, whether the witness is available, and whether there has been a previous opportunity to cross-examine the witness). In the recent case of Bullcoming v. new Mexico, 09-10876 (U.S. 6-23-2011), the U.S. Supreme Court, reversing the Supreme Court of New Mexico, held that a forensic lab report in a DWI case was subject to challenge under the Confrontation Clause and inadmissible when the lab technician who created the report did not testify.

map map

Hindman & Lanzon
550 West Main Street
Suite 550
Knoxville, TN 37902

Toll Free: 866-383-1545
Phone: 865-223-6450
Fax: 865-521-6371
Knoxville Law Office Map

proof.glaze.luxury