THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES AFTER Crawford v. Washington: A NATIONAL SURVEY, John M. Leventahl and Liberty Aldrich, Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law, Alexandria, VA: June 2006. Copyright © 2006 The Regents of the University of California on behalf of Boalt Journal of Criminal Law.
Crawford and the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception – PEOPLE v. Constantino Altamirano RUIZ (No. H026609 –No. CC196214), Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County, CA: July 19, 2005.
CRAWFORD V. WASHINGTON (No. 02-9410), Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, DC: March 8, 2004.
DAVIS V. WASHINGTON AND HAMMON V. INDIANA
Decision of Interest; 911 Call Is Admissible as Trial Evidence if It Meets ‘Excited Utterance’ or Other Hearsay Exceptions, New York Law Journal, New York, NY: April 23, 2004. Copyright © 2004 ALM Properties, Inc.
Domestic Violence Cases See New Test, Robert Tharp, Dallas Morning News Dallas, TX: July 5, 2004. Copyright © 2004 Belo Corporation.
Domestic Violence, Child Abuse, and Trustworthiness Exceptions After Crawford, Myrna S. Raeder, Criminal Justice (20, Number 2), American Bar Association, Chicago, IL: summer 2005. Copyright © 2005 American Bar Association.
Domestic Violence Hearsay Exceptions in the Wake of Crawford vs. Washington: A View from the Bench, Judge Amy Karan and Judge David Gersten, Synergy (volume 8, number 2), Resource Center on Domestic Violence: Child Protection and Custody, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Reno, NV: Summer 2004. Crawford v. Washington and Ohio v. Roberts.
Evidence-Based Prosecution in the Aftermath of Crawford v. Washington, Casey Gwinn, JD, NOTICE, (volume II number 2), National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence, Austin, TX: Fall 2004.
Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule and Recent Case Law: Crawford v. Washington, The Honorable John M. Leventhal, Brooklyn Domestic Violence Court, Brooklyn, NY: November 17, 2004.
GUZMAN V. TEXAS, Court of Appeals of Texas, Tenth District, Waco, TX: February 13, 2008. Note: The court writes that this decision joins a "growing number of states" where courts are allowing a child's identification of the perpetrator to be admitted under the medical records exception – on the grounds that WHO caused the child's injuries IS relevant to diagnosis and treatment.
HAMMON V. INDIANA AND DAVIS V. WASHINGTON TALKING POINTS, National Network to End Domestic Violence, Washington, DC: 2006.
Hearsay testimony could bring new trials; Ruling involves cases in which police tell alleged victim’s story, Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco, CA: February 23, 2005. Copyright © 2005 The Chronicle Publishing Co.
HIGH COURT TO CONSIDER RETROACTIVITY OF ‘CRAWFORD’, Associated Press, New York, NY: May 16, 2006. Copyright © 2006 Associated Press. Bockting v Bayer.
Keeping the Balance True: Admitting Child Hearsay in the Wake of Crawford v. Washington, Victor I. Vieth, National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse Update (volume 16, number 12), American Prosecutors Research Institute, Alexandria, VA: 2004.
LONG V. U.S., District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Washington, DC: November 15, 2007.
Minnesota Court Rules Defendant’s Confrontation Clause Rights Were Not Violated, Michelle Lore, Minnesota Lawyer, Minneapolis, MN: November 27, 2006. Copyright © 2006 Dolan Media Newswires.
THE NATION; JUSTICES MAY FURTHER RESTRICT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TESTIMONY, David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times, Washington, DC: March 20, 2006. Copyright © 2006 Los Angeles Times.
A New Order in the Court, Elizabeth Gettelman, Mother Jones, San Francisco, CA: July 1, 2005. Copyright © 2005 The Foundation for National Progress.
Panel Permits Hearsay Response to ‘Preliminary’ Police Inquiry, Tom Perrotta, New York Law Journal, New York, NY: July 29, 2005. Copyright © 2005 ALM Properties, Inc.
PEOPLE v. MORENO (No. 06SC26), Colorado Supreme Court, Denver, CO: June 11, 2007.
RECENT CASE LAW REGARDING CRAWFORD V. WASHINGTON, John M. Leventhal, August 31, 2007.
RULING ON HEARSAY EVIDENCE GUTS CASES, Robin Franzen, The Oregonian, Portland, OR: March 11, 2004. Copyright © 2004 The Oregonian. Crawford v. Washington (No. 02-9410).
Ruling Ties Prosecutors’ Hands; Cross-Examination Right Reaffirmed, Sarah Huntley, Rocky Mountain News, Denver, CO: February 8, 2005. Copyright © 2005 Denver Publishing Company. Crawford v. Washington.
SJC Curbs Use of Witness Accounts – Ruling Bolsters Defendants’ Rights, Jonathan Saltzman, Boston Globe, Boston, MA: August 30, 2005. Copyright © 2005 Globe Newspaper Company.
State v. Molina (No. 53730-0-I.), Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, Seattle, WA: August 15, 2005.
State OF IOWA v. JAMES HOWARD BENTLEY (No. 75 / 06-1000), Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines, IA: September 28, 2007.
STATE OF WASHINGTON v. OHLSON (No. 78238-5), Supreme Court of Washington, Olympia, WA: October 18, 2007.
“Though Justice May Be Blind, It is NOT Stupid”: Applying Common Sense to Crawford v. Washington in Domestic Violence Cases, Adam M. Krischer, JD, The Voice (volume 1, issue 1), National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women, American Prosecutors Research Institute, Alexandria, VA: November 2004.
Understanding Crawford v. Washington, Catherine A. Carroll, JD, The Resource, National Sexual Violence Resource Center, Enola, PA: Fall/Winter 2004.
U.S. v. Brun (No. 04-4208), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, August 1, 2005. A call to a 911 operator was an excited utterance, was reliable, and was admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule even though the declarant was unavailable.
USing the crawford v. washington "forfeiture by wrongdoing" confrontation clause exception in child abuse cases, Tom Harbison, National Child Protection Training Center, Winona State University, Winona, MN.
West Virginia v. James Allen Mechling (No. 32873), Syllabus by the Court, Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, Charleston, WV: June 30, 2006. West Virginia v. James Allen Mechling.