D.C. Circuit· 5/7/1974
United States v. Perry Lynch
Citations
- 499 F.2d 1011
- 163 U.S. App. D.C. 6
- 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 8774
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting that “policies underlying the general prohibition of hearsay” are “especially cogent when the testimony of a witness is critical to the prosecution’s case against the defendant”
- requiring good faith effort as an aspect of the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation
- “It is difficult to believe that if the preliminary hearing testimony of this critical witness were not available, the prosecution would have abandoned its efforts at this point to locate [the witness].”
- confrontation rights are “especially cogent when the testimony of a witness is critical to the prosecution’s case against the defendant”
- \Confrontation Clause considerations `are especially cogent when the testimony of a witness is critical to the prosecution's case against the defendant.' \
- “We are not prepared to equate ‘unavailability’ with ‘evasiveness.’ The government failed to establish that [the witness] could not have been located and brought to trial by a reasonably diligent search. Accordingly we hold that the witness was not ‘unavailable’ . . . .”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Tamm, MacKinnon, McCree
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.