Citation network
Rock Vs. Arkansas
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 22, 1987
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. 44 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court Rock v. ArkansasSearch
-
U.S. 44 (1987) Rock v. ArkansasSearch
-
p. 827. This Court in Ferguson v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Ferguson v. GeorgiaSearch
-
a right that is guaranteed in the criminal courts of the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Washington v. TexasSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
See generally Westen, The Compulsory Process Clause, 73 Mich.L.Rev. 71, 119-120 (1974). Moreover, in Faretta v. CaliforniaSearch
-
to testify is also a necessary corollary to the Fifth Amendment's guarantee against compelled testimony. In Harris v. NewSearch
-
Id. at 401 U. S. 230 , quoting Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
to ensure trustworthy evidence, that interfered with the ability of a defendant to offer testimony. In Washington v. TexasSearch
-
Footnote omitted.) Id. at 388 U. S. 21 , quoting Benson v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. at 388 U. S. 22 , quoting Rosen v. UnitedSearch
-
that permits a witness to take the stand, but arbitrarily excludes material portions of his testimony. In Chambers v. MississippiSearch
-
obtaining investigative leads or identifications that were later confirmed by independent evidence. See, e.g., People v. HughesSearch
-
Before Ferguson v. GeorgiaSearch
-
required in some extrajudicial proceedings includes the right of the affected person to testify. See, e.g., Gagnon v. ScarpelliSearch
-
to testify on one's own behalf in defense to a criminal charge is a fundamental constitutional right. See, e.g., Nix v. WhitesideSearch
-
rules control the presentation of evidence, and do not offend the defendant's right to testify. See, e.g., Chambers v. MississippiSearch
-
Washington v. TexasSearch
-
Contreras v. StateSearch
-
Collins v. SuperiorSearch
-
People v. QuintanarSearch
-
State v. DavisSearch
-
Bundy v. StateSearch
-
State v. MorenoSearch
-
State v. HaislipSearch
-
State v. CollinsSearch
-
Commonwealth v. KaterSearch
-
People v. GonzalesSearch
-
Alsback v. BaderSearch
-
State v. PalmerSearch
-
People v. HughesSearch
-
Robison v. StateSearch
-
Commonwealth v. NazarovitchSearch
-
State v. MartinSearch
-
Wash.2d 713, 684 P.2d 651 (1984). See State v. TureSearch
-
The Arkansas court relied on a California case, People v. ShirleySearch
-
have adopted a rule that hypnosis affects the credibility, but not the admissibility, of testimony. See, e.g., Beck v. NorrisSearch
-
United States v. AwkardSearch
-
State v. WrenSearch
-
State v. BrownSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial