KRUPPSTADT
v.
UNITED STATES
KRUPPSTADT
UNITED STATES
538 U.S. 1048
Supreme Court of the United States (2003)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
Full opinion text not available for this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Twilegar v. State, 42 So. 3d 177 (Fla. 2010)…10 F. 3d 579, 590-91 (8th Cir.2002) (holding that the Confrontation Clause did not guarantee the defendant the right to cross-examine a speaker whose statements were imputed to the defendant as adoptive admissions of a party opponent), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1048, 123 S.Ct. 2112, 155 L.Ed.2d 1089 (2003). In Nelson, we held that because the codefendant’s statements were admitted as admissions by silence, there could be no Confrontation Clause violation. We presented several factors that should be present to…
-
Globe v. State, 877 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 2004)…579, 590-91 (8th Cir. 2002) (holding that the Confrontation Clause did not guarantee the defendant the right to cross-examine a speaker whose state [*673] ments were imputed to the defendant as adoptive admissions of a party opponent), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1048, 123 S.Ct. 2112, 155 L.Ed.2d 1089 (2003). In Nelson, we held that because the codefendant’s statements were admitted as admissions by silence, there could be no Confrontation Clause violation. We presented several factors that should be present to…