Citation network
Coy Vs. Iowa
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 29, 1988
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. 1012 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Coy v. IowaSearch
-
U.S. 1012 (1988) Coy v. IowaSearch
-
Bourjaily v. UnitedSearch
-
not address the question whether the Confrontation Clause error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
California v. GreenSearch
-
with the Confrontation Clause have involved either the admissibility of out-of-court statements, see, e.g., Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
U. S. 74 (1970), or restrictions on the scope of cross-examination, Delaware v. VanSearch
-
U. S. 308 (1974). Cf. Delaware v. FenstererSearch
-
Clause guarantees the defendant a face-to-face meeting with witnesses appearing before the trier of fact. See Kentucky v. StincerSearch
-
U. S. 748 , 482 U. S. 749 -750 (1987) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting). For example, in Kirby v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Similarly, in Dowdell v. UnitedSearch
-
supra, at 399 U. S. 157 . Last Term, the plurality opinion in Pennsylvania v. RitchieSearch
-
Lee v. IllinoisSearch
-
Z. Chafee, The Blessings of Liberty 35 (1956), quoted in Jay v. BoydSearch
-
rights that are, or were asserted to be, reasonably implicit -- namely, the right to cross-examine, see Chambers v. MississippiSearch
-
the right to exclude out-of-court statements, see Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
asserted right to face-to-face confrontation at some point in the proceedings other than the trial itself, Kentucky v. StincerSearch
-
Whatever they may be, they would surely be allowed only when necessary to further an important public policy. Cf. Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
States, 483 U. S. 171 , 483 U. S. 183 (1987) (citing Dutton v. EvansSearch
-
suggests that any Confrontation Clause error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under the standard of Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
other types of violations of the Confrontation Clause are subject to that harmless error analysis, see e.g., Delaware v. VanSearch
-
a general requirement that a witness face the defendant. We have expressly said as much, as long ago as 1899, Kirby v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 174 U. S. 47 , 174 U. S. 55 (1899), and as recently as last Term, Pennsylvania v. RitchieSearch
-
so warrants. Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
U. S. 56 , 448 U. S. 63 -64 (1980) (emphasis added). See also Chambers v. MississippiSearch
-
and yet have fallen within an exception to the general requirement of face-to-face confrontation. See, e.g., Dutton v. EvansSearch
-
U. S. 74 (1970). Indeed, we expressly recognized in Bourjaily v. UnitedSearch
-
Id. at 483 U. S. 182 (quoting Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
procedure was necessary to further an important public policy. See ante at 487 U. S. 1021 (citing Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
U. S. 730 , 482 U. S. 736 -737 (1987), quoting Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
Ibid. See also Lee v. IllinoisSearch
-
for the witness to be able to see the defendant, ante at 487 U. S. 1024 , quoting Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
Even that characterization, however, was immediately explained in Green by the quotation from Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
p. 150. See also Davis v. AlaskaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Coy v. IowaSearch
-
Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
Delaware v. VanSearch
-
Cf. Delaware v. FenstererSearch
-
See Kentucky v. StincerSearch
-
Kirby v. UnitedSearch
-
Dowdell v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
of Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Term, Pennsylvania v. RitchieSearch
-
Mattox v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial