Legal Opinion
Jackson v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided May 17, 2007No. 05-CM-1256PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
STEADMAN, Senior Judge:
After a bench trial, Jerome Jackson was convicted of a violation of the Bail Reform Act, D.C.Code § 23-1327(a) (2001), for failing to appear at a status hearing on a separate criminal charge. On appeal, Jackson claims that the trial court’s admission of certified copies of the docket entries and the Notice to Return to Court contained in the District of Columbia Superior Court records violated his Confrontation Clause rights under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 1 We…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Davis v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- United States v. Eleuterio Lopez-Moreno, Also Known as Eleuterio LopezCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2005
- Thomas v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2006
- United States v. Esteban Bahena-CardenasCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- State v. TaymanSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2008
- People v. EspinozaColorado Court of Appeals · 2008
- Bynum v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2016
- State v. CarterCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
- Millard v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2009
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.