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.)
