Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hallums v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided February 12, 2004No. 98-CM-1354Published

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

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. United States v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. Ohio v. RobertsSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. Bourjaily v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  5. Idaho v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1990

21 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