Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Sheriff v. Witzenburg

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided November 9, 2006No. 45462Published

1Concurrence

Rose, C. L,

concurring:

I concur in the result reached by the majority but disagree with its reasoning. We have historically concluded that the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause applies at a preliminary exami*1063nation. Therefore, I disapprove of today’s departure from this principle and the majority’s conclusion that Crawford v. Washington1 does not apply at a preliminary examination, without clear direction to the contrary from the United States Supreme Court. I conclude that Witzenburg’s constitutional rights were violated by the use of the alleged-victims’ affidavits at his preliminary…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. Gerstein v. PughSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  3. Commonwealth v. McBrideSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  4. Evans v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Felix v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 1993

11 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