Idaho Supreme Court· 4/1/2015

State v. Katherine Lea Stanfield

Citations

158 Idaho 327
347 P.3d 175
2015 Ida. LEXIS 96

How courts have described this case

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

“A defendant’s right to confrontation is violated when ‘an expert acts merely as a well-credentialed conduit,’ and does not provide any independent, expert opinion.” (quoting United States v. Ramos-Gonzalez, 664 F.3d 1, 5-6 (1st Cir.2011)
“Because no position [in Williams ] received support from a majority of the justices, Williams does not provide us a governing legal principle and this Court views the decision as limited to the unique set of facts presented in that case.”
“Because no position [in Williams] received support from a majority of the justices, Williams does not provide us a governing legal principle and this Court views the decision as limited to the unique set of facts presented in that case.”
discussing the right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Horton, Burdick, Eismann, Walters

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

42 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

37 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.