Marcus Mungo v. George Duncan

How courts have described this case

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

• doubting that responses “delivered in emergency circumstances to help the police nab [the victim’s] assailants... were the type of declarations the [Supreme] Court would regard as testimonial”
• noting that, while some inaccurate evidence will be barred under the new rule, “Crawford also precludes admission of highly reliable testi- monial out-of-court statements that would have been admis- sible under the old rules.”
• stating in dicta that victim's identification of defendant immediately after the shooting after a single police question was nontestimonial
• stating in dicta that victim’s identification of defendant immediately after the shooting after a single police question was nontestimonial
• declining to apply Crawford retroactively to habeas petitioners challenging state court convictions
• Crawford is not a watershed rule because some of the substantial changes in the protection given by the Confrontation Clause under Crawford will likely impair the accuracy of the factfinding process although other changes under Crawford will likely improve it

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).