Merrill Trust Co. v. Commissioner

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, “because Roberts has not demonstrated that jurors who should have been removed for cause actually sat on the panel, his rights were not violated”
• holding that there was no confrontation clause concern and applying these reliability factors to a statement against interest
• recognizing that the “Washington State Constitution’s cruel punishment clause often provides greater protection than the Eighth 20 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 98824-2 Amendment”
• stating that conclusions based on nonnovel methods of scientific proof are not susceptible to exclusion under Frye
• finding that the legislative history of the accomplice liability statute requires the mens rea of knowledge of the particular crime
• concluding, on facts similar to those before us, that a trial judge has discretion, under the rule of completeness, to require admission of the entire statement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).