DANNY ANDRADE v. UNITED STATES

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that Bryant “distinguished its earlier holding in Hammon” by “explaining that the statements deemed testimonial in Hammon arose in the context of a domestic-violence assault that involved neither a weapon nor serious injury”
• noting that questions “such as ‘Are you hurt?’; ‘Do you need medical attention?’; ‘Was a weapon involved?’; or ‘Did he say anything about coming back or about harming anyone else?’” are “questions specifically directed at possible emergencies”
• relying on the same circumstances as support for the conclusion that there was no ongoing emergency
• rejecting the government’s unsubstantiated argument that the officer did not know “whether weapons had been involved” and thus “needed to get an account from [the complainant] in order to determine whether there was an emergency”
• finding victim’s answers to an officer’s questions did not “suggest a focus on dealing with an emergency” where she “did not request medical assistance” or “ask the police to take any other emergency steps,” but “simply described the circumstances of the earlier incident”
• statement testimonial where the police had no “reason to believe that a weapon had been involved in the incident”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).