Barksdale v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a prior statement was not admissible because the witness refused to testify and hence “gave no testimony in court with which the prior statement could be judged to be inconsistent”
• holding that prior statement was not admissible because witness refused to testify and, thus, ‘‘gave no testimony in court with which the prior statement could be judged to be inconsistent’’
• holding that government could not impeach witness with prior statement because he “refused to answer any questions and thus gave no testimony in court with which the prior statement could be judged to be inconsistent”
• holding that a witness’s prior videotaped statement was inadmissible because the witness “refused to answer any questions [at trial] and thus gave no testimony in court with which the prior statement could be judged to be inconsistent”
• holding videotaped statement was not admissible as a prior inconsistent statement when witness “gave no testimony in court with which the prior statement could be judged to be inconsistent”
• distinguishing between a confidential informant and others who make hearsay allegations in determining whether magistrate had probable cause to issue search warrant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).