Lawyers Manual - Unified Court System

220 Elizabeth Cronin
34. Nieves, supra.
35. People v Brooks, 71 NY2d 877 (1988) (statements of critically injured
victim in response to questions from emergency room nurse two hours after
shooting were admissible as excited utterances because of the physical and
emotional suffering and fading in and out of consciousness).
36. 541 US 36 (2004).
37. Id. (add page no.)
38. Id. (add page no.)
39. US v Goldstein, 442 F3d 777, 785 (2d Cir 2006) (statements not testimonial
where record contains no indication declarant had any expectation or
awareness that the statements might be used later at trial).
40. US v Saget, 377 F3d 233 (2d Cir 2004) (cert denied 543 US 1079) (2005)
(co-conspirator’s statements may not be testimonial under Crawford where it
was made to a confidential informant and under circumstances “conferring
particularized” confrontation rights); see also US v McClain, 377 F3d 219
(2d Cir 2004) (admission of co-defendant’s plea allocution against defendant
violated Confrontation Clause but considered harmless error).
41. Diaz v Herbert, 317 F Supp 462 (SDNY 2004).
42. Crawford 541 US at 68.
43. Davis v Washington, 126 S Ct 2266 (2006).
44. Id. at 2273-74.
45. Id. at 2273.
46. Id. at 2278.
47. Id. at 2277.
48. Id. at 2278.
49. Id. at 2279-80.
50. People v Coleman, 16 AD3d 254 (1st Dept 2005).
51. L. Linsky, Use of Domestic Violence History Evidence in the Criminal
Prosecution: A Common Sense Approach, 16 Pace L Rev 73, 75-76 (1995).
52. People v Hudy, 73 NY2d 40 (1988).
53. People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 (1901); People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d
350 (1981).