CHRISTOPHER H. THOMPSON v. STATE OF FLORIDA

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming that introduction of complainant’s video recorded statement did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the complainant was available and testified at trial
• affirming that introduction of complainant’s video recorded statement did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the complainant was available and testified at trial
• affirming that introduction of complainant’s video-recorded statement did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the complainant was available and testified at trial
• affirming that introduction of complainant’s video recorded statement did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the complainant was available and testified at trial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).