This HTML5 document contains 91 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
n22https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/
n13https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/219509/bullcoming-v-new-mexico/
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
n14https://scholar.google.com/
yago-reshttp://yago-knowledge.org/resource/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n18https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010/
n15https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/564/647/
n20https://web.archive.org/web/20111004035807/http:/federalevidence.com/node/
n11https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/
n8https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
yagohttp://dbpedia.org/class/yago/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
freebasehttp://rdf.freebase.com/ns/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:Bullcoming_v._New_Mexico
rdf:type
yago:Abstraction100002137 dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity wikidata:Q2334719 yago:Case107308889 owl:Thing yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 dbo:Case yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCases dbo:UnitOfWork yago:Event100029378 dbo:LegalCase yago:Happening107283608
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
dcterms:subject
dbc:Confrontation_Clause_case_law dbc:Legal_history_of_New_Mexico dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court dbc:2011_in_United_States_case_law
dbo:wikiPageID
31267421
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1055208313
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Justice_Ginsburg dbr:Melendez-Diaz_v._Massachusetts dbr:Crawford_v._Washington dbr:Confrontation_Clause dbr:U.S._LEXIS dbc:Confrontation_Clause_case_law dbc:Legal_history_of_New_Mexico dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court dbr:P.3d dbr:Jeffrey_L._Fisher dbc:2011_in_United_States_case_law dbr:Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Davis_v._Washington dbr:Certiorari dbr:United_States_Supreme_Court dbr:Gary_King_(politician) dbr:New_Mexico_Supreme_Court dbr:L._Ed._2d
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n11:09-10876.pdf n13: n14:scholar_case%3Fcase=15625840326585553080 n15: n18:09-10876 n20:1047 n22:9-10876.ZS.html
owl:sameAs
yago-res:Bullcoming_v._New_Mexico n8:4dLon wikidata:Q4996700 freebase:m.0gj9nkc
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:Sixth_Amendment dbt:Reflist dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:SCOTUS-stub dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Cite_journal dbt:Ussc
dbp:dissent
Kennedy
dbp:docket
9
dbp:joindissent
Roberts, Breyer, Alito
dbp:joinmajority
Scalia; Sotomayor, Kagan ; Thomas
dbp:lawsapplied
dbr:Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
dbp:oyez
n18:09-10876
dbp:parallelcitations
172800.0
dbp:prior
25920.0
dbp:uspage
647
dbp:usvol
564
dbp:arguedate
0001-03-02
dbp:argueyear
2011
dbp:case
Bullcoming v. New Mexico,
dbp:courtlistener
n13:
dbp:decidedate
0001-06-23
dbp:decideyear
2011
dbp:fullname
Donald Bullcoming v. State of New Mexico
dbp:holding
A second surrogate analyst's testimony about the statements in the forensic report of a separate certifying analyst violates the Confrontation Clause.
dbp:justia
n15:
dbp:litigants
Bullcoming v. New Mexico
dbp:majority
Ginsburg
dbp:otherSource
Supreme Court
dbp:otherUrl
n11:09-10876.pdf
dbo: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.
dbp:concurrence
Sotomayor
dbp:cornell
n22:9-10876.ZS.html
dbp:googlescholar
n14:scholar_case%3Fcase=15625840326585553080
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:Bullcoming_v._New_Mexico?oldid=1055208313&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
6313
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:Bullcoming_v._New_Mexico