Bauer v. River City Mtge., L.L.C.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that trial court’s reliance on co-defendant’s statement, given only after he had been told that defendant had implicated him, was presumptively unreliable
• recognizing that the “truthfinding function of the Confrontation Clause is uniquely threatened when an accomplice’s confession is sought to be introduced against a criminal defendant without the benefit of cross-examination”
• holding that state court “correctly found that Deborah’s state- ments to Butler and Maggart fall within the excited-utterance exception”
• recognizing that the “truthfinding function of the 22 1 Confrontation Clause is uniquely threatened when an accomplice’s confession is sought to be 2 introduced against a criminal defendant without the benefit of cross-examination”
• noting that there exists a “time-honored teaching that a codefendant’s confession inculpating the accused is inherently unreliable”
• holding that inculpatory hearsay statements by accomplices are “presumptively unreliable”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).