State of Tennessee v. Brandon Ackerman

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 victim’s out-of- court statement did not violate the defendant’s federal or state confrontation rights because victim testified at trial, notwithstanding victim’s “nearly complete lack of memory”
• concluding that the statements were not admissible because the witness “unequivocally admitted making the statements” and because the statements were not inconsistent with her trial testimony
• recognizing that expert testimony about a defendant’s susceptibility to suggestion could be admissible
• stating that, assuming there was an inconsistency in the witness’s lack of memory, the entire video should not have -17- been admitted
• “Crawford and its progeny are limited to those situations when the State offers into evidence the out-of-court statements of a non-testifying declarant.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).