United States v. Edward E. Bordeaux, Jr.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that exclusion was not disproportionate \[i]n light of the minimal probative value of the evidence and the important purpose of the exclusion\-the prevention of witness harassment
• concluding that exclusion was not disproportionate “[i]n light of the minimal probative value of the evidence and the important purpose of the exclusion”—the prevention of witness harassment
• concluding that a child’s statements during a “forensic interview” were testimonial because the purpose of the interview was “to collect information for law enforcement” about the alleged sexual abuse
• stating that “Crawford does not indicate, and logic does not dictate, that multi-pur-pose statements cannot be testimonial”
• noting that “the purpose of [Rule 412(a) ] is to protect the alleged victims of sexual assault from harassment or embarrassment”
• noting that “the purpose of [Rule 412(a)] is to protect the alleged victims of sexual assault from harassment or embarrassment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).