Magruder v. Com.
Supreme Court of Virginia
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION BY Justice CYNTHIA D. KINSER.
In each of these appeals, the defendant claims that the admission into evidence, pursuant to Code § 19.2-187, of a certificate of analysis in the absence of testimony at trial from the person who performed the particular analysis and prepared the certificate yiolated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Because the procedure provided in Code § 19.2-187.1 adequately protects a criminal defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause and because the defendants in these appeals failed to utilize that procedure, we conclude that…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited98 opinions
- Link v. Wabash RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- United States v. OlanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
93 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Commonwealth v. VasquezMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2010
- State v. PasqualoneOhio Supreme Court · 2009
- State v. LaturnerSupreme Court of Kansas · 2009
- Arrington v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2009
- Caison v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2008
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.