Citation network
Ohio Vs. Roberts
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 25, 1980
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. 56 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
U.S. 56 (1980) Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
the evidence must be excluded, at least absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. Cf. Mancusi v. StubbsSearch
-
Cf. California v. GreenSearch
-
to secure the absent witness' attendance, as required by Barber v. PageSearch
-
It first held that the Court of Appeals had erred in concluding that Anita was not unavailable. Barber v. PageSearch
-
is only probable cause, id. at 196, 378 N.E.2d at 496, and citing the dissenting opinion in California v. GreenSearch
-
citing United States v. AllenSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Pointer v. TexasSearch
-
it would require, on objection, the exclusion of any statement made by a declarant not present at trial. See Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
historical evidence leaves little doubt, however, that the Clause was intended to exclude some hearsay. See California v. GreenSearch
-
Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 284 , 410 U. S. 295 (1973), quoting Berger v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U.S. at 410 U. S. 295 , may warrant dispensing with confrontation at trial. See Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
and in the development and precise formulation of the rules of evidence applicable in criminal proceedings. See Snyder v. MassachusettsSearch
-
California v. GreenSearch
-
demonstrate the unavailability of, the declarant whose statement it wishes to use against the defendant. See Mancusi v. StubbsSearch
-
U. S. 719 (1968). See also Motes v. UnitedSearch
-
of fact a satisfactory basis for evaluating Page 448 U. S. 66 the truth of the prior statement,' California v. GreenSearch
-
Resolution of this issue requires a careful comparison of this case to California v. GreenSearch
-
established rule that prior trial testimony is admissible upon retrial if the declarant becomes unavailable, Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
and recent dicta suggesting the admissibility of preliminary hearing testimony under proper circumstances, Barber v. PageSearch
-
Page 448 U. S. 69 Pointer v. TexasSearch
-
App. 21. Cf. Davis v. AlaskaSearch
-
never asked the court to declare Anita hostile, his questioning necessarily occurred on direct examination. See State v. MinnekerSearch
-
there was no mention of the inherent reliability or unreliability of Porter and his story. See also Mancusi v. StubbsSearch
-
U.S. at 390 U. S. 724 -725 (emphasis added). Accord, Mancusi v. StubbsSearch
-
U.S. at 399 U. S. 189 , n. 22 (concurring opinion, citing Barber v. PageSearch
-
and it was conversation with a parent who was concerned about her daughter's whereabouts. Barber and Mancusi v. StubbsSearch
-
is stated in Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. BaillieSearch
-
Ohio St. 567, 570, 148 N.E. 233, 234 (1925). See Zacchini v. Scripps-HowardSearch
-
See California v. GreenSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
Cf. Mancusi v. StubbsSearch
-
United States v. AllenSearch
-
the Fourteenth Amendment, Pointer v. TexasSearch
-
See Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
See Snyder v. MassachusettsSearch
-
See Mancusi v. StubbsSearch
-
Motes v. UnitedSearch
-
Pointer v. TexasSearch
-
Cf. Davis v. AlaskaSearch
-
See State v. MinnekerSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial