Davis v. Johnson
In brief
The Supreme Court left the Third Circuit's ruling in place by declining review, but it did not decide the Sixth Amendment question.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided · May 4, 2020
- What it’s about
- The Court denied review, leaving the Third Circuit’s ruling in place.
- Who it affects
- The Third Circuit's ruling remains in place for Davis and Johnson, but the Supreme Court did not resolve the confession question.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The case concerned whether admitting a co-defendant’s confession with the defendant’s name replaced by a neutral pronoun violates the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses when the co-defendant does not testify.
The dispute involved a co-defendant's confession describing the accused's role, with the name replaced by a neutral pronoun and a jury instruction limiting how jurors could use it.
Question presented
Whether the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause, as interpreted in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), and its progeny, is violated when a trial court admits a non-testifying co-defendant’s confession that names the defendant and describes his role in the crime, even if the confession is redacted to replace the defendant’s name with a neutral pronoun and the jury is given a limiting instruction?
What the Court decided
Holding
Petition DENIED.
What's next
This Supreme Court docket action is finished, and the Third Circuit's ruling remains in place.
Documents
Opinions
Key filings
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
Show 7 moreShow fewer
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.