Citation network
Mancusi Vs. Stubbs
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 26, 1972
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
-
U.S. 204 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court Mancusi v. StubbsSearch
-
U.S. 204 (1972) Mancusi v. StubbsSearch
-
warrant a federal habeas corpus court's upsetting the State's determination that the witness was not available. Barber v. PageSearch
-
In Bakery Drivers v. WagshalSearch
-
in this 1954 trial because counsel had been appointed for him only four days before the trial took place. Stubbs v. BomarSearch
-
and was again convicted. This conviction was, in due course, affirmed by the Supreme Court of Tennessee. Stubbs v. StateSearch
-
confront the witness Holm. The Court of Appeals sustained this contention, relying on this Court's opinion in Barber v. PageSearch
-
on the facts of this case had petitioner's counsel actually cross-examined Woods at the preliminary hearing. See Motes v. UnitedSearch
-
own process or through established procedures depending on the voluntary assistance of another government. Cf. People v. TrunnellSearch
-
the adequacy of Holm's examination at the first trial must be taken into consideration. In addition to Barber v. PageSearch
-
of this Court that have dealt at some length with the requirements of the Confrontation Clause are California v. GreenSearch
-
U. S. 149 (1970), and Dutton v. EvansSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
California v. GreenSearch
-
referred to in Dutton. At least since the decision of this Court in Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
at the 1954 trial were significantly more conducive to an assurance of reliability than were those obtaining in Barber v. PageSearch
-
of Holm conducted by such counsel likewise fell short of constitutional standards. The federal habeas judge in Stubbs v. BomarSearch
-
s appointment and the date of the trial. If the habeas court had rendered its decision after our holding in Chambers v. MaroneSearch
-
in affirming the judgment, expressly determined that the prior cross-examination of Holm had been adequate. Stubbs v. StateSearch
-
the case in other circumstances, the State of New York was not bound under any theory of res judicata by Stubbs v. BomarSearch
-
The dissent states that this case is controlled by SEC v. MedicalSearch
-
which was not required to do anything by that judgment. There would be a rough parallel between our case and SEC v. MedicalSearch
-
York should pardon Stubbs. But, on the facts we have before us now, the mootness issue is controlled by Bakery Drivers v. WagshalSearch
-
U. S. 437 (1948), and Dakota County v. GliddenSearch
-
U. S. 222 (1885), rather than by SEC v. MedicalSearch
-
between the nature of examination at a preliminary hearing and at a trial on the merits is discussed both in Barber v. PageSearch
-
U. S. 719 (1968), and in MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN's dissenting opinion in California v. GreenSearch
-
his appeal. Thus, a debtor does not moot his case by paying the judgment against him pendente lite. Dakota County v. GliddenSearch
-
store, the union does not moot the case by lifting the boycott or strike pendente lite. Bakery Drivers v. WagshalSearch
-
him. Thus, the debtor does moot his case by entering into a compromise in settlement of the debt. Dakota County v. GliddenSearch
-
claims of litigants who argue that illegal action will probably harm them in the future. E.g., Sociaist Labor Party v. GilliganSearch
-
SEC v. MedicalSearch
-
the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. To reach that result, the Court necessarily distinguishes our holding in Barber v. PageSearch
-
U. S. 719 (1968), on untenable grounds, and utterly ignores its rationale. In Barber v. PageSearch
-
was enough that Holm was out of the jurisdiction of the United States, beyond the reach of compulsory process, Stubbs v. StateSearch
-
United States Court of Appeals, 442 F.2d 561, 565 (1971). Apparently this Court takes the same view. But, in Barber v. PageSearch
-
The Court seeks to distinguish SEC v. MedicalSearch
-
Even when an appeal is pending, see, e.g., Bloch v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. EmpireSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Mancusi v. StubbsSearch
-
Stubbs v. BomarSearch
-
the Supreme Court of Tennessee. Stubbs v. StateSearch
-
See Motes v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. People v. TrunnellSearch
-
and Dutton v. EvansSearch
-
Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
Chambers v. MaroneSearch
-
Stubbs v. StateSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial