Magouirk v. Warden Winn Corr Ctr

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that admission of prior recorded testimony violated the Confrontation Clause because defendant “was unable to conduct any cross-examination” due to trial court’s erroneous sustaining of prosecution objections
• holding that admission of prior recorded testimony violated the Confrontation Clause because defendant “was unable to conduct any cross-examination” due to trial court’s erroneous sustaining of prosecution objections
• holding that admission of prior recorded testimony violated the Confrontation Clause because defendant “was unable to conduct any cross-examination” due to trial court’s erroneous sustaining of prosecution objections
• holding that admission of prior recorded testimony violated the Confrontation Clause because defendant “was unable to conduct any cross-examination” due to trial court’s erroneous sustaining of prosecution objections
• holding that admission of prior recorded testimony violated the Confrontation Clause because defendant “was unable to conduct any cross-examination” due to trial court’s erroneous sustaining of prosecution objections
• agreeing in a habeas proceeding that state prosecution did not waive its ability to later advance an argument it “did not know of” at the time of trial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).