finding Crawford did not apply to the facts before the court, but stating a belief that the ruling would not be retroactive because the Court did not suggest it would be and it does not appear to fall within the Teague exceptions
Summary of this case from Martinez v. RunnelsNo. 04-7106.
January 10, 2005.
C.A. 8th Cir. Reported below: 371 F. 3d 438. Certiorari Denied.
finding Crawford did not apply to the facts before the court, but stating a belief that the ruling would not be retroactive because the Court did not suggest it would be and it does not appear to fall within the Teague exceptions
Summary of this case from Martinez v. RunnelsFull title:EVANS v. ROPER, SUPERINTENDENT, POTOSI CORRECTIONAL CENTER
Court:U.S.
Date published: Jan 10, 2005
Murillo v. Frank, 402 F.3d 786, 790 (7th Cir. 2005); Dorchy v. Jones, 398 F.3d 783, 788 (6th Cir. 2005);…
People v. SotoBefore determining whether pedigree information is considered testimonial pursuant to the Crawford rubric (…