Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the prosecution's failure to inform the jury that a witness had been promised not to be prosecuted in exchange for his testimony was a failure to fulfill the duty to present all material evidence to the jury, and constituted a violation of due process, requiring a new trial. [1]
The Court modified the Hawkins rule so that the witness-spouse alone has a privilege to refuse to testify adversely; the witness may be neither compelled to testify nor foreclosed from testifying. Court membership; Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart Byron White · Thurgood Marshall
The United States Supreme Court held that the use of the spouse's recorded statement made during police interrogation violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to be confronted with the witnesses against the defendant where the spouse, because of the state law marital privilege, did not testify at the trial and so was unavailable.
The Supreme Court has further clarified that a "statement" refers to "a single declaration or remark, rather than a report or narrative". [3] Thus, a trial court must separately analyze each individual statement, "sentence-by-sentence", [ 4 ] rather than analyzing the narrative as whole for hearsay content or exceptions.
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.
In the instant case, the Court held that a trial judge could hold the "presumption" that a new witnesses' testimony is perjured due to "a pattern of discovery violations". [24] The pattern in Taylor's case was a series of two amendments to the witness list done in bad faith. [ 25 ] "
Just hours before the hearing began, Gov. Greg Abbott in a court filing early Monday morning asked the Texas Supreme Court to throw out House lawmakers' subpoena of the death row inmate, breaking ...
Two years prior to its publication, in Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause bars “admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” [1] The Supreme Court declined to ...