Citation network
Lee Vs. Illinois
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 03, 1986
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. 530 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Lee v. IllinoisSearch
-
U.S. 530 (1986) Lee v. IllinoisSearch
-
they did not fall within the rule of Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
enough to warrant its untested admission into evidence against Lee. See Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
to overcome that presumption. A In Pointer v. TexasSearch
-
Id. at 380 U. S. 404 . Citing and quoting from such cases as Kirby v. UnitedSearch
-
States, Page 476 U. S. 540 174 U. S. 47 (1899), Alford v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 282 U. S. 687 (1931), Greene v. McElroySearch
-
U. S. 474 (1959), In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257 (1948), and Turner v. LouisianaSearch
-
to cross-examine witnesses is primarily a functional right that promotes reliability in criminal trials. In California v. GreenSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 391 U.S. at 391 U. S. 141 (WHITE, J., dissenting) (citations omitted). Thus, in Douglas v. AlabamaSearch
-
the presumption of unreliability that attaches to codefendants' confessions, citing as support our decision in Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
from the reason of the general rule.' Page 476 U. S. 544 Id. at 448 U. S. 65 , quoting Snyder v. MassachusettsSearch
-
with the facts in the defendant's statement. See Parker v. RandolphSearch
-
the possibility that this error was harmless when assessed in the context of the entire case against Lee. See Schneble v. FloridaSearch
-
Ibid. (quoted in Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
thus no opportunity for cross-examination sufficient to satisfy the demands of the Confrontation Clause. Cf Jackson v. DennoSearch
-
expense of the other. We have nothing of that kind here. I agree with the Court that this case is governed by Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
U. S. 74 , 400 U. S. 89 (1970) (plurality opinion), quoting California v. GreenSearch
-
to prove the truth of what it asserts unless the witness is produced for cross-examination. See California v. GreenSearch
-
right not to testify against himself made him effectively unavailable for cross-examination by petitioner. See Douglas v. AlabamaSearch
-
U. S. 419 (1965). In much the same way, Thomas' testimony was unavailable to the State. See Phillips v. WyrickSearch
-
Thomas separately and granted him immunity from the use of his inculpatory testimony against petitioner. See Kastigar v. UnitedSearch
-
California v. GreenSearch
-
of determining whether their prior statements are admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule. See California v. GreenSearch
-
is the fact that Thomas' statements were thoroughly and unambiguously adverse to his penal interest. See United States v. WhiteSearch
-
Such circumstances were presented starkly in Douglas v. AlabamaSearch
-
with its purposes, see Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
As this Court recently explained in United States v. InadiSearch
-
In the circumstances of this case, however, the absence of this formality is not decisive. Cf. United States v. ThomasSearch
-
requires only that a defendant be given the opportunity for cross-examination or its functional equivalent. See Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
Donnelly v. UnitedSearch
-
In Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
Dutton v. EvansSearch
-
in which the out-of-court statements are constitutionally inadmissible against the defendant. See United States v. KelleySearch
-
the entire confession could have been a misguided effort to please the interrogating officers, see, e.g., Parker v. RandolphSearch
-
confessions for the rule announced in Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 391 U. S. 123 (1968). Compare Parker v. RandolphSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Lee v. IllinoisSearch
-
of Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
Lee. See Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
A In Pointer v. TexasSearch
-
Kirby v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial