Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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]
Quoting a 1828 dictionary, the Court explained that a witness is one who "bear[s] testimony" and that "testimony" refers to a "solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing some fact". [4] Nonetheless, in Crawford, the Supreme Court explicitly declined to provide a "comprehensive" definition of "testimonial" evidence. [5]
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 ] "
According to the Court in Roberts, if a witness is unavailable, that witness's testimony can be admitted through a third person if it bears "adequate indicia of reliability." This was true if a statement fell within a "firmly rooted hearsay exception" or had "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness."
A witness might be compelled to provide testimony in court, before a grand jury, before an administrative tribunal, before a deposition officer, or in a variety of other legal proceedings. A subpoena is a legal document that commands a person to appear at a proceeding. It is used to compel the testimony of a witness in a trial.
The Compulsory Process Clause gives any criminal defendant the right to call witnesses in his favor. If any such witness refuses to testify, that witness may be compelled to do so by the court at the request of the defendant. [20] [21] However, in some cases the court may refuse to permit a defense witness to testify. For example, if a defense ...
The Court wrote: A person's right to reasonable notice of a charge against him, and an opportunity to be heard in his defense—a right to his day in court—are basic in our system of jurisprudence; and these rights include, as a minimum, a right to examine the witnesses against him, to offer testimony, and to be represented by counsel. [9]
Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990), was a U.S. Supreme Court case involving the Sixth Amendment.The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, which provides criminal defendants with the right to confront witnesses against them, did not bar the use of one-way closed-circuit television to present testimony by an alleged child sex abuse victim.