Citation network
California Vs. Green
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 23, 1970
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Distinguished
-
U.S. 149 (1970) U.S. Supreme Court California v. GreenSearch
-
U.S. 149 (1970) California v. GreenSearch
-
In People v. JohnsonSearch
-
We cannot agree with the California court for two reasons, one of which involves rejection of the holding in People v. JohnsonSearch
-
People v. GreenSearch
-
therein denied respondent his right of confrontation under the California Supreme Court's recent decision in People v. JohnsonSearch
-
the California court, on the authority of its decision in People v. JohnsonSearch
-
values even though the statements in issue were admitted under an arguably recognized hearsay exception. See Barber v. PageSearch
-
Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
State v. SaporenSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
and cross-examination, have been subjected on several occasions to careful scrutiny by this Court. In Pointer v. TexasSearch
-
U. S. 407 , we held that its introduction violated the defendant's confrontation rights. Similarly, in Barber v. PageSearch
-
conclusion that the admission of his out-of-court statements does not create a confrontation problem. Thus, in Douglas v. AlabamaSearch
-
U.S. at 380 U. S. 419 -420. Again, in Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. Page 399 U. S. 164 Harrington v. CalifornoaSearch
-
held that admitting the prior testimony of an unavailable witness does not violate the Confrontation Clause. Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
warrant distinguishing the two cases for purposes of the Confrontation Clause. Indeed, we indicated as much in Pointer v. TexasSearch
-
And in Barber v. PageSearch
-
as long as the declarant's inability to give live testimony is in no way the fault of the State. Compare Barber v. PageSearch
-
Motes v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 178 U. S. 458 (1900). But nothing in Barber v. PageSearch
-
People v. JohnsonSearch
-
See People v. GreenSearch
-
E.g., Ellis v. UnitedSearch
-
See Jett v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Gelhaar v. StateSearch
-
United States v. BlockSearch
-
Di Carlo v. UnitedSearch
-
Indeed, failure to comply with federal evidentiary standards appears to be the reason for the result in Bridges v. WixonSearch
-
position earlier adopted by this Court as a matter of federal evidentiary, not constitutional, law. See Hickory v. UnitedSearch
-
Confrontation Clause, might prevent convictions where a reliable evidentiary basis is totally lacking, see Thompson v. LouisvilleSearch
-
and the assumption that the story would be the same are all destroyed. See People v. GreenSearch
-
Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. WraySearch
-
to reach respondent's additional contentions of suppression of evidence and prejudicial misconduct. See People v. GreenSearch
-
with his testimony at trial. Compare People v. GreenSearch
-
Jett v. CommonwealthSearch
-
See Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
Page 399 U. S. 173 Barber v. PageSearch
-
Smith v. IllinoisSearch
-
Salinger v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court California v. GreenSearch
-
See Barber v. PageSearch
-
Court. In Pointer v. TexasSearch
-
Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
Harrington v. CalifornoaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial