United States v. William Lewis Hall

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that non-hearsay evidence, including admission by the defendant, was sufficient to establish violation and made defendant’s interest in excluding hearsay evidence weak
• explaining that the reliability of a victim’s hearsay statement was enhanced by documented physical bruising
• rejecting the proposition that Crawford extends the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation to revocation hearings, because such hearings are not “criminal prosecutions” within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment
• “[Defendant] nevertheless enjoys a due process right to confront witnesses against him during his supervised release proceedings, as the Supreme Court held over thirty years ago in Morrissey.”
• “Hall’s interest in excluding [medical records and statements made for purposes of diagnosis or treatment] was thus weak”
• statement deemed reliable, in part, because declarant provided same account several times

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).