Having problems with message search?
Notice to Members:
After reading the Decision on the following case, IN RE TY.B. and IN RE TI.B.; T.B., APPELLANT I have realized that members may come to the same erroneous conclusion that the poster of this information also suffers. This case has no relation to the Crawford v. Washington ruling and, in fact, not one reference is made in the entire decision.
Instead, the reasoning within the Decision focuses partially on privity and more so on harmless error and how it effected the trial court decision's toward admissibility of hearsay evidence. It was not remanded to the trial court due to the "confrontation clause." In fact, in the dissent, the justice makes it clear that there is much direct evidence that supports the district's reasoning to support the moving party's allegations. Even the consenting opinion states that it is credible that the charges alleged against respondent are true but cited several cases that shows how the harmless error standard was misapplied. It further states the hearsay exception rule was included even though the judge announced at the beginning of her decision that the evidence wasn't hearsay using the privity standard. The appellate justices even allude that the non-hearsay testimony could have been enough to sustain the neglect charge because of respondents many documented violent episodes either from witnesses to bruises, broken furniture, aggressive utterances from respondent, police reports, hospital stays or protection orders.
"It may be that the non-hearsay evidence introduced by the District would have been sufficient to sustain the finding of neglect, but that is not the question before us."
If you cannot understand the analyses in the decisions, then you cannot expound the intracacies of how to apply the law in your own arguments. Member beware read the decisions you will use for yourselves and if you don't understand it, ask a legal advocate.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
Nos. 01-FS-1307 and 01-FS-1320
IN RE TY.B. and IN RE TI.B.;
T.B., APPELLANT.
Appeals from the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia
(N398-00 and N397-00)
(Hon. Kaye K. Christian, Trial Judge)
Nos. 01-FS-1307 and 01-FS-1320
IN RE TY.B. and IN RE TI.B.;
T.B., APPELLANT.
Appeals from the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia
(N398-00 and N397-00)
(Hon. Kaye K. Christian, Trial Judge)
Offline 
Send Email