Legal Opinion

United States v. Samuel Orozco-Acosta

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided May 26, 2010No. 09-50192PublishedCited by 51 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

The opinion in this case filed by this court on May 26, 2010, slip op. 7534, is amended as follows:

At slip op. at 7538, first sentence of the second full paragraph, indicate a footnote following “Because the government concedes that the introduction of the CNR violated Orozco-Acosta’s confrontation right,”. The indicated footnote is to be numbered 3, with following footnotes renumbered accordingly. The new footnote 3 then is to state:

The government was well-advised to make this concession. Although prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Melendez-Diaz, our case law consistently held…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. Delaware v. Van ArsdallSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Melendez-Diaz v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  4. United States v. CartyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
  5. Miller v. GammieCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003

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

3Cited by51 opinions

  1. State v. JasperWashington Supreme Court · 2012
  2. United States v. Venancio Rojas-PedrozaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
  3. Freddie Owens v. Bryan StirlingCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2020
  4. United States v. ChungCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
  5. United States v. Roberto LopezCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014

46 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