Brander v. Garrett

How courts have described this case

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

• finding no Confrontation Clause violation for admitting Facebook posts because there was no indication that the primary purpose of the posts “was to memorialize an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony”
• “The Superior Court determined that trial counsel was not ineffective, because the omitted Confrontation Clause claim lacked merit. This method of adjudicating an ineffective assistance claim is consistent with Third Circuit precedent; hence, it is reasonable.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).