enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melendez-Diaz_v._Massachusetts

    Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009), [1] is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it was a violation of the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation for a prosecutor to submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the person who performed the test. [2]

  3. Griffin v. California - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griffin_v._California

    Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, by a 6–2 vote, that it is a violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights for the prosecutor to comment to the jury on the defendant's declining to testify, or for the judge to instruct the jury that such silence is evidence of guilt.

  4. Diaz v. United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaz_v._United_States

    Diaz was convicted and sentenced to seven years in prison. On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Court rejected petitioner's argument that Agent Flood's testimony violated rule 704(b). The Court ruled that Flood's statements did not constitute an "explicit opinion" on the defendant's state of mind. [4]

  5. Ohio v. Clark - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_v._Clark

    The Court held that the out-of-court statements were admissible because the primary purpose was not to create evidence. Citing a prior related case, Michigan v. Bryant, the Court formulated this test as one asking "whether a statement was given with the 'primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.'"

  6. Davis v. Washington - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis_v._Washington

    Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States and written by Justice Antonin Scalia that established the test used to determine whether a hearsay statement is "testimonial" for Confrontation Clause purposes.

  7. Washington v. Texas - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_v._Texas

    Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution (guaranteeing the right of a criminal defendant to force the attendance of witnesses for their side) is applicable in state courts as well as federal courts. [1]

  8. Death row inmate will not testify to House panel amid battle ...

    www.aol.com/gov-abbott-urges-texas-supreme...

    After a dramatic flurry of weekend court filings, the Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee on Monday announced death row inmate Robert Roberson's testimony would be delayed until he could ...

  9. Kastigar v. United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kastigar_v._United_States

    Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court decision that ruled on the issue of whether the government's grant of immunity from prosecution can compel a witness to testify over an assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.