Hallums v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
1DissentRuiz, Associate Judge
I conclude that even if the identification at issue in this case came within the exception for present sense impressions — a close issue I do not decide — the statement was admitted in violation of the Confrontation Clause, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, I would reverse appellant’s conviction and remand for a new trial.
I. Identifications.
We are dealing here with the admission of a hearsay identification without the de-clarant available for cross-examination. Statements of identification are more likely than other statements describing an observed event to…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- United States v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Ohio v. RobertsSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Bourjaily v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Idaho v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.