Willie Brumley v. Curtis Wingard

How courts have described this case

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

• holding not harmless admission of videotaped deposition in violation of Confrontation Clause because deposition was “the key piece of evidence” and deponent was the prosecution’s “principal witness” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• noting that “defense counsel objected, preserving its arguments for appeal,” trial judge overruled those objections, and “jury then viewed the cleaned-up version of the videotaped deposition [of the out of state witness]”
• finding Ohio Crim. R. 15(F) inconsistent with the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause
• finding Ohio Crim. R. 15(F) inconsistent with the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause
• finding a lack of good faith where the prosecution failed to utilize the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without a State in Criminal Proceedings to secure a witness housed in prison in a different state
• finding a lack of good faith where the prosecution failed to utilize the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without a State in Criminal Proceedings to secure a witness housed in prison in a different state

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).