Citation network
Kentucky Vs. Stincer
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 19, 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. 730 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court Kentucky v. StincerSearch
-
U.S. 730 (1987) Kentucky v. StincerSearch
-
This right is secured for defendants in state as well as in federal criminal proceedings. Pointer v. TexasSearch
-
California v. GreenSearch
-
Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
Kirby v. UnitedSearch
-
an out-of-court statement of an unavailable witness does not bear adequate indications of trustworthiness. See Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
witness at the preliminary hearing where the statement was made. Id. at 448 U. S. 70 -73. In California v. GreenSearch
-
cases in which the opportunity for cross-examination has been restricted by law or by a trial court ruling. In Davis v. AlaskaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. at 415 U. S. 318 . Similarly, in Delaware v. VanSearch
-
the Confrontation Clause's functional purpose in ensuring a defendant an opportunity for cross-examination. See Lee v. IllinoisSearch
-
Brief for Petitioner 22. Cf. Gannett Co. v. DePasqualeSearch
-
repeated during direct examination and cross-examination of the witnesses in respondent's presence. See California v. GreenSearch
-
those facts to a court or jury, and whether the child has a moral sense of the obligation to tell the truth. See Moore v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Capps v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Hendricks v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Thomas v. CommonwealthSearch
-
jury, to decide whether a witness is competent to testify based on the witness' answers to such questions. Whitehead v. StithSearch
-
Payne v. CommonwealthSearch
-
As was said in United States v. GagnonSearch
-
Brief for Respondent 50, quoting Michigan v. LongSearch
-
U. S. 1032 , 463 U. S. 1041 (1983). We decline to do so. In Michigan v. LongSearch
-
See Barber v. PageSearch
-
California v. GreenSearch
-
In Pennsylvania v. RitchieSearch
-
Id. at 480 U. S. 52 . Thus, the plurality in Ritchie concluded that the constitutional error in Davis v. AlaskaSearch
-
Similar requirements for establishing competency to testify were set forth in Wheeler v. UnitedSearch
-
Litzkuhn v. ClarkSearch
-
Davis v. WeberSearch
-
Payne v. CommonwealthSearch
-
State v. HowardSearch
-
see n 19, supra. But see Moll v. StateSearch
-
n. 25, but he argues that, as the prevailing party, he may assert any ground in support of his judgment. See Dandridge v. WilliamsSearch
-
McGoldrick v. CompagnieSearch
-
Heckler v. CampbellSearch
-
the right of cross-examination. See ante at 482 U. S. 736 (citing Douglas v. AlabamaSearch
-
in some detail the Confrontation Clause as it pertains to the admission of out-of-court statements, e.g., Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
and restrictions on the scope of cross-examination, e.g., Davis v. AlaskaSearch
-
the defendant's broad right to confront the witnesses against him. Pointer v. TexasSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Kentucky v. StincerSearch
-
Pointer v. TexasSearch
-
Kirby v. UnitedSearch
-
See Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
In California v. GreenSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial