Leif Carlson, Sr. v. Attorney General of California

How courts have described this case

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

• opining that “[s]imple 24 tolerance of, or failure to foil, a third party’s previously expressed decision either to skip town himself rather than testifying or to 25 prevent another witness from appearing does not ‘cause’ or ‘effect’ or ‘bring about’ or ‘procure’ a witness’s absence”
• “[T]o the extent that the Rule does ‘codify’ the forfeiture doctrine, it must be read ‘to permit the admission of those hearsay statements that would be admissible under the constitutional doctrine of waiver by misconduct.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).