Legal Opinion

People v. Dendel

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided August 24, 2010No. Docket No. 247391PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ON SECOND REMAND

Before: BORRELLO, P.J., and SAAD and WILDER, JJ. Saad, J.

In light of a recent United States Supreme Court case that further defines the scope of the rights granted under the Confrontation Clause, Melendez-Diaz v Massachusetts, 557 US _; 129 S Ct 2527; 174 L Ed 2d 314 (2009), our Supreme Court remanded this case for us to address whether the trial court violated defendant’s confrontation rights when it admitted expert testimony that was based on a report prepared by nontestifying forensic analysts. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm defendant’s conviction…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. Ohio v. RobertsSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. Neder v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  4. Davis v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
  5. Melendez-Diaz v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 2009

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. People v. HenryMichigan Court of Appeals · 2014
  2. People v. McDadeMichigan Court of Appeals · 2013
  3. People of Michigan v. Raymond Curtis CarpMichigan Supreme Court · 2014
  4. Dendel v. WashingtonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2016
  5. In re the Personal Restraint of HacheneyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2012

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API