Idaho v. Wright
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
The reviewed citing opinions otherwise applied Wright positively, reported Wright's treatment of older cases, rejected adverse arguments, or repeated Crawford's higher-court act rather than independently treating Wright.
2,078 later cases cite Idaho v. Wright; 147 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading; 146 of them have been read, and the text of 1 citing opinion could not be retrieved, so it remains unread. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Idaho v. Wright?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Abrogated
-
Crawford abrogated Wright's rule that testimonial hearsay can satisfy the Confrontation Clause through judicial findings of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness, requiring unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination instead.
Crawford v. Washington · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
The Roberts test allows a jury to hear evidence, untested by the adversary process, based on a mere judicial determination of reliability. It thus replaces the constitutionally prescribed method of assessing reliability with a wholly foreign one.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Idaho v. Wright and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace