HUNTER, SHAWN, PEOPLE v

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that there was no 21 Confrontation Clause violation when codefendant’s huila (or kite) was admitted because the huila 22 was not testimony
• holding that only testimonial out-of-court statements by a nontestifying codefendant are subject to Bruton
• holding that only testimonial out-of-court statements by a nontestifying codefendant are subject to Bruton
• finding that memo made “exclusively [for] internal gang communications” was not testimonial
• first quoting Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 822 (2006); and then quoting Melendez-Diaz, 557 U.S. at 310–11
• every Circuit Court to consider the issue has held that, after 3 Crawford, the Bruton rule applies only to testimonial statements

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).