Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The right only applies to criminal prosecutions, not civil cases or other proceedings. Generally, the right is to have a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses who are offering testimonial evidence against the accused in the form of cross-examination during a trial.
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay statements in criminal cases is permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.
Alito then addresses past cases in which a defendant's conduct has constituted an implied waiver of his Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses. As in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009), implied waiver may be found in a defendant's "failure to object to the offending evidence". As in Illinois v.
The right to confront and cross-examine witnesses also applies to physical evidence; the prosecution must present physical evidence to the jury, providing the defense ample opportunity to cross-examine its validity and meaning. Prosecution generally may not refer to evidence without first presenting it. In Hemphill v.
Argument: Oral argument: Case history; Prior: Application of Gault; 99 Ariz. 181 (1965), Supreme Court of Arizona, Rehearing denied Holding; Juveniles tried for crimes in delinquency proceedings should have the right of due process protected by the Fifth Amendment, including the right to confront witnesses and the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.
Justice Marshall concurred in Part II and in the judgment, stating that before a decision is made to terminate an employee's wages, the employee should be entitled to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses and to present witnesses on his own behalf whenever there are substantial disputes in testimonial evidence.
On appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Pointer's attorney repeated the argument that Phillips' non-appearance deprived Pointer of his right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. The Texas court held that Pointer could have cross-examined Phillips at the examining trial and chose ...
The rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses and to call witnesses on one's own behalf have long been recognized as essential to due process." [4] Here, because of the trial court's ruling on the defense's adverse-witness motion, "Chambers was denied an opportunity to subject McDonald's damning repudiation and alibi to cross-examination."