About: Bullcoming v. New Mexico     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100, within Data Space : dbpedia.org associated with source document(s)

Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011), is a significant 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause case decided by the United States Supreme Court. On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court considered the issue whether a defendant's Confrontation Clause rights extend to a non-testifying laboratory analyst whose supervisor testifies as to test results that the analyst transcribed from a machine. In a five to four decision authored by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the second surrogate analyst could not testify about the testimonial statements in the forensic report of the certifying analyst under the Confrontation Clause.

AttributesValues
rdf:type
rdfs:label
  • Bullcoming v. New Mexico
rdfs:comment
  • Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011), is a significant 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause case decided by the United States Supreme Court. On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court considered the issue whether a defendant's Confrontation Clause rights extend to a non-testifying laboratory analyst whose supervisor testifies as to test results that the analyst transcribed from a machine. In a five to four decision authored by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the second surrogate analyst could not testify about the testimonial statements in the forensic report of the certifying analyst under the Confrontation Clause.
foaf:name
  • Donald Bullcoming v. State of New Mexico
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
dct:subject
Wikipage page ID
Wikipage revision ID
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
sameAs
Concurrence
  • Sotomayor
cornell
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
ArgueDate
  • --03-02
ArgueYear
case
  • Bullcoming v. New Mexico,
courtlistener
DecideDate
  • --06-23
DecideYear
fullname
  • Donald Bullcoming v. State of New Mexico
Holding
  • A second surrogate analyst's testimony about the statements in the forensic report of a separate certifying analyst violates the Confrontation Clause.
justia
Litigants
  • Bullcoming v. New Mexico
majority
  • Ginsburg
other source
  • Supreme Court
other url
Dissent
  • Kennedy
Docket
JoinDissent
  • Roberts, Breyer, Alito
JoinMajority
  • Scalia; Sotomayor, Kagan ; Thomas
LawsApplied
oyez
ParallelCitations
  • 172800.0
Prior
  • 25920.0
USPage
USVol
has abstract
  • Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011), is a significant 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause case decided by the United States Supreme Court. On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court considered the issue whether a defendant's Confrontation Clause rights extend to a non-testifying laboratory analyst whose supervisor testifies as to test results that the analyst transcribed from a machine. In a five to four decision authored by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the second surrogate analyst could not testify about the testimonial statements in the forensic report of the certifying analyst under the Confrontation Clause. The case follows a line of decisions, including Crawford v. Washington (2004) and Davis v. Washington (2006), that altered the Court's interpretation of the Confrontation Clause guarantee and clarified its application only to "testimonial" statements.
googlescholar
prov:wasDerivedFrom
page length (characters) of wiki page
is foaf:primaryTopic of
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage of
Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git81 as of Jul 16 2021


Alternative Linked Data Documents: PivotViewer | ODE     Content Formats:       RDF       ODATA       Microdata      About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3322 as of Sep 15 2021, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc25), Single-Server Edition (61 GB total memory)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2021 OpenLink Software