Sheriff v. Witzenburg
Nevada Supreme Court
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
- Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Gerstein v. PughSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Commonwealth v. McBrideSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
- Evans v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 2001
- Felix v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 1993
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.