State v. Thoma

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the trial court had erred in determining that the described corroborating circumstances were insufficient to establish the trustworthiness of the alleged alternative perpetrator’s inculpatory statements
• listing as corroborating circumstance that “[t]here was no known connection between” the defendant and the purported “alternative perpetrator” declarant
• identifying as a persuasive corroborating circumstance that the alleged perpetrator “repeated his confession to three different people at three different times”
• “[T]o be admissible under the due process rule of Chambers, the evidence must be inadmissible under the Oregon Evidence Code.”
• under analogous rule, where defendant made no showing that declarant would invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege or that incarceration prevented him from testifying, declarant was not legally unavailable
• under analogous rule, where defendant made no showing that declarant would invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege or that incarceration prevented him from testifying, declarant was not legally unavailable

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).