Nathan S. Berkman v. State of Indiana

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a witness was “unavailable” for purposes of admitting deposition testimony where the State subpoenaed the witness and the witness was avoiding an arrest warrant
• holding the State was not required to do more than it did to secure Barraza
• observing that, to the extent the defendant did not exercise his right to attempt to undermine adverse witness testimony, it was not because the defendant was denied the opportunity to do so
• the trial court relied on the statements of the prosecutor regarding the State’s efforts to locate Barraza
• sentence above the advisory not inappropriate based on egregious nature of crime

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).