Jones v. Basinger

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “any error sufficiently harmful to sat- isfy the Brecht ‘actual prejudice’ standard could be deemed harmless only by unreasonably applying Chapman.”
• explaining that limited use of out-of-court statements to explain the course of an investigation does not violate the Confrontation Clause
• noting that “the term [testimonial] clearly pertains to statements made ‘in anticipation of or with an eye toward a criminal prosecution’” (quoting Tolliver, 454 F.3d at 665)
• noting that “the term [testimonial] clearly pertains to statements made ‘in anticipation of or with an eye toward a criminal prosecution’” (quoting Tolliver, 454 F.3d at 665)
• noting that “the term [testimonial] clearly pertains to statements made ‘in anticipation of or with an eye toward a criminal prosecution’” (quoting Tolliver, 454 F.3d at 665)
• stating that “an informant’s out-of-court statement to law enforcement is not hearsay if that statement is offered into evidence as an explanation of why the subsequent investigation proceeded as it did” (quotation simplified)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).