1.0老澳门开奖结果老澳门开奖结果Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana | 老澳门开奖结果rich600338<blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="5gL2TGBLf0"><a href="/cases/davis-v-washington-and-hammon-v-indiana">Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana</a></blockquote><iframe sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" src="/cases/davis-v-washington-and-hammon-v-indiana/embed#?secret=5gL2TGBLf0" width="600" height="338" title="“Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana” — 老澳门开奖结果" data-secret="5gL2TGBLf0" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" class="wp-embedded-content"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">
/* <![CDATA[ */
/*! This file is auto-generated */
!function(d,l){"use strict";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&"undefined"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),c=new RegExp("^https?:$","i"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display="none";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):"link"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute("src")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener("message",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll("iframe.wp-embedded-content"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute("data-secret"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+="#?secret="+t,e.setAttribute("data-secret",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:"ready",secret:t},"*")},!1)))}(window,document);
/* ]]> */
</script>
These cases raise the question of how to determine whether evidence is "testimonial" for purposes of the Confrontation Clause, and thus inadmissible at trial unless the defendant has an opportunity to cross-examine the witness whose "testimony" is being offered by the prosecution. The 老澳门开奖结果 brief urges the Court to adopt an objective standard under which a statement would be treated as "testimonial" if a reasonable person under the circumstances would understand that the statement could be used for criminal investigation or prosecution. DECIDED