Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> How Appealing

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Litigation

: How Appealing

Pa. Superior Court issues ruling in Confrontation Clause case that I argued in March 2009

ADVERTISEMENTS

Pa. Superior Court issues ruling in Confrontation Clause case that I argued in March 2009: As noted in two earlier posts (see here and here), in March 2009 I argued an appeal to a three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in which the main question presented on appeal involved whether the defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated by the trial court's admission into evidence at a jury trial of the videotaped testimony of a child who provided incriminating testimony against the defendant on direct examination but who then refused to or was unable to complete her direct examination and thus was entirely unavailable for cross-examination.

I previously linked to the Brief for Appellant and Reply Brief for Appellant that I filed in the appeal.

Yesterday, the appellate court issued this unanimous decision holding that the defendant's Confrontation Clause rights were violated and that the defendant is entitled to a new trial on all of the charges on which he had been convicted.

And now, because it is quite the beach day today in Margate City, New Jersey, I must return to my regularly scheduled summer vacation.

Full post as published by How Appealing on August 25, 2009 (boomark / email).