Hubert, Andre Djuna

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that case-specific out-of-court statements offered by an expert and not otherwise admissible are necessarily offered for their truth, in violation of the Confrontation Clause
• concluding that, when “any expert relates to the jury case-specific out-of-court statements, and treats the content of those statements as true and accurate to support the expert’s opinion, the statements are hearsay”
• holding that 27 || “case-specific out-of-court statements” relied on by prosecution 28 || gang expert are inadmissible hearsay under California law and may 1 also be testimonial and violate defendant’s Sixth Amendment right 2 to confrontation
• an expert may not testify to case-specific hearsay facts, about which the expert has no personal knowledge, “unless they are independently proven by competent evidence or are covered by a hearsay exception”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).