State v. Carter

Docket number

Held that trial court’s generalized concerns about COVID-19 risk and travel delays did not constitute case-specific finding of necessity to abridge defendant’s right to face-to-face confrontation of witness under both state and federal constitution, but that erroneous admission of witness’s remote testimony was harmless error. Concurrence would revisit prior jurisprudence holding that the Ohio constitution’s confrontation clause must be interpreted in lockstep with that of the federal constitution.

Opinions, Briefs and other Documents

  • Opinion

State v. Carter, Ohio 2023-0156

Sole footer logo

A project of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law