No. 22-6292
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 6th-amendment confrontation-clause constitutional-interpretation crawford-precedent crawford-v-washington criminal-procedure due-process maryland-v-craig ohio-v-roberts two-way-video witness-testimony
Latest Conference:
2023-02-17
Question Presented (from Petition)
Our constitution codifies the ancient right of confronting one's accuser. Relying on Ohio v. Roberts, this Court has held a procedure which eliminates in person confrontation was permissible sos long as it furthered an important public policy, was necessary, and the testimony was reliable. The Court subsequently overturned Ohio v. Roberts in Crawford v. Washington. After Crawford, does testimony taken using two-way video violate the Confrontation Clause?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does testimony taken using two-way video violate the Confrontation Clause?
Docket Entries
2023-02-21
Petition DENIED.
2023-01-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/17/2023.
2022-12-21
Waiver of right of respondent Wisconsin to respond filed.
2022-12-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 12, 2023)
Attorneys
Ryan Bessert
Steven Sidney Roy — Law Office of Steven Roy, Petitioner
Wisconsin
Kara L. Janson — Wisconsin Department of Justice, Respondent