2017-IPG-34 (HOPSON AND WASHINGTON)

2017-IPG-34 (HOPSON AND WASHINGTON)

This IPG discusses two cases involving the Confrontation Clause-related issues.   The first is a case from the California Supreme Court that reads like a law school hypothetical highlighting the potential pitfalls of introduce statements of accomplices for purportedly non-hearsay purposes such as impeaching a defendant.  It also provides an interesting discussion of the limits on what evidence can be introduced when a defendant “opens the door” to allowing in testimony that would otherwise be inadmissible over a Confrontation Clause objection.  (People v. Hopson (2017) 3 Cal.5th 424.)  The second is a California appellate decision more solidly locking in the principle that the Aranda-Bruton rule does not apply when the statement of the co-defendant sought to be introduced in a joint trial is nontestimonial.  (People v. Washington 2017 WL 3866413.)