Michigan v. Bryant
E821198
Michigan v. Bryant is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision that further defined the scope of the Confrontation Clause by clarifying when statements made to police are considered “testimonial” and thus subject to Sixth Amendment protections.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Michigan v. Bryant canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T9799018 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Michigan v. Bryant Context triple: [Crawford v. Washington, subsequentCaseInterpreting, Michigan v. Bryant]
-
A.
Michigan v. Tucker
Michigan v. Tucker is a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the exclusionary rule’s application to statements obtained without full Miranda warnings, holding that derivative evidence from such statements could still be admissible.
-
B.
Virginia v. Black
Virginia v. Black is a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a ban on cross burning carried out with intent to intimidate while clarifying the limits of First Amendment protection for hate speech and symbolic expression.
-
C.
Minnesota v. Dickerson
Minnesota v. Dickerson is a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case that refined the scope of stop-and-frisk searches by recognizing the "plain feel" doctrine while limiting officers’ ability to manipulate objects during a pat-down.
-
D.
Arizona v. Evans
Arizona v. Evans is a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case that extended the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained through an arrest based on erroneous computer records.
-
E.
Maryland v. Wirtz
Maryland v. Wirtz was a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the extension of federal minimum wage and overtime provisions to employees of state-operated schools and hospitals under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Michigan v. Bryant Target entity description: Michigan v. Bryant is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision that further defined the scope of the Confrontation Clause by clarifying when statements made to police are considered “testimonial” and thus subject to Sixth Amendment protections.
-
A.
Michigan v. Tucker
Michigan v. Tucker is a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the exclusionary rule’s application to statements obtained without full Miranda warnings, holding that derivative evidence from such statements could still be admissible.
-
B.
Virginia v. Black
Virginia v. Black is a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a ban on cross burning carried out with intent to intimidate while clarifying the limits of First Amendment protection for hate speech and symbolic expression.
-
C.
Minnesota v. Dickerson
Minnesota v. Dickerson is a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case that refined the scope of stop-and-frisk searches by recognizing the "plain feel" doctrine while limiting officers’ ability to manipulate objects during a pat-down.
-
D.
Arizona v. Evans
Arizona v. Evans is a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case that extended the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained through an arrest based on erroneous computer records.
-
E.
Maryland v. Wirtz
Maryland v. Wirtz was a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the extension of federal minimum wage and overtime provisions to employees of state-operated schools and hospitals under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (51)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Confrontation Clause case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ criminal procedure case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
criminal law ⓘ evidence law ⓘ |
| citation | 562 U.S. 344 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy | Justice Antonin Scalia NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted | U.S. Constitution, Amendment VI NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| criminalChargeContext | murder prosecution ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2011-02-28 ⓘ |
| dissentBy |
Justice Antonin Scalia
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Justice Elena Kagan NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| dissentJoinedBy | Justice Sonia Sotomayor (in part) NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 09-150 ⓘ |
| factPattern |
Police questioned a gunshot victim at a gas station about who shot him and where the shooting occurred.
ⓘ
The victim identified Richard Bryant as the shooter before dying. ⓘ |
| holding |
Statements made to police are nontestimonial when the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency.
ⓘ
The existence and scope of an ongoing emergency is a highly context-dependent inquiry. ⓘ The victim’s statements to police identifying the shooter and describing the shooting were admissible as nontestimonial under the Confrontation Clause. ⓘ When the primary purpose of an interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution, the statements are testimonial. ⓘ |
| impact |
Expanded the scope of nontestimonial statements in the context of ongoing emergencies.
ⓘ
Further refined the definition of testimonial statements after Crawford v. Washington. ⓘ |
| issue | Whether a mortally wounded victim’s statements to police about the identity of his shooter were testimonial under the Confrontation Clause. ⓘ |
| joinedMajorityBy |
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice Clarence Thomas NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice Stephen G. Breyer NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| legalSubject |
Confrontation Clause
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Sixth Amendment NERFINISHED ⓘ criminal evidence ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Justice Sonia Sotomayor NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| originatingCourt | Michigan state courts NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| petitioner | State of Michigan NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| proceduralPosture | Review of a Michigan Supreme Court decision that had excluded the victim’s statements as testimonial. ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Bullcoming v. New Mexico
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Crawford v. Washington NERFINISHED ⓘ Davis v. Washington NERFINISHED ⓘ Hammon v. Indiana NERFINISHED ⓘ Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts NERFINISHED ⓘ Ohio v. Roberts NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| respondent | Richard Bryant NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| result | Judgment of the Michigan Supreme Court reversed and case remanded. ⓘ |
| standardAnnounced | Primary purpose test for determining whether statements are testimonial under the Confrontation Clause. ⓘ |
| standardClarified | Objective evaluation of the circumstances and the statements and actions of both the declarant and the interrogators. ⓘ |
| stateInvolved | Michigan NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| term | October Term 2010 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Michigan v. Bryant Description of subject: Michigan v. Bryant is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision that further defined the scope of the Confrontation Clause by clarifying when statements made to police are considered “testimonial” and thus subject to Sixth Amendment protections.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.