Citation network
Taylor Vs. Illinois
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 25, 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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 400 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Taylor v. IllinoisSearch
-
U.S. 400 (1988) Taylor v. IllinoisSearch
-
Few rights are more fundamental than that of an accused to present witnesses in his own defense, see, e.g., Chambers v. MississippiSearch
-
Washington v. TexasSearch
-
interest, we have held that even the defendant may not testify without being subjected to cross-examination. Brown v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 356 U. S. 148 , 356 U. S. 156 (1958). Moreover, in United States v. NoblesSearch
-
cross-examination misconceives the issue. The District Court did not bar the investigator's testimony. Cf. Washington v. TexasSearch
-
Cf. United States v. NoblesSearch
-
This right is applicable in state, as well as federal, prosecutions. Washington v. TexasSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
through a quotation from an Illinois Appellate Court decision, two of our Compulsory Process Clause cases, Washington v. TexasSearch
-
U. S. 14 (1967), and Chambers v. MississippiSearch
-
U. S. 284 (1973). The state court decision from which petitioner quoted, People v. RayfordSearch
-
Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
Lloyd v. GillSearch
-
Rasnar Benson, Inc. v. KassabSearch
-
Rowlik v. GreenfieldSearch
-
Fendler v. GoldsmithSearch
-
should be noted that, in Illinois, the sanction of preclusion is reserved for only the most extreme cases. In People v. RayfordSearch
-
party demonstrates a 'deliberate contumacious or unwarranted disregard of the court's authority.' ( Schluartz v. MoatsSearch
-
Department of Transportation v. MainlineSearch
-
where due process requires that a defendant be permitted to offer testimony of witnesses in his defense. ( Washington v. TexasSearch
-
Few rights are more fundamental than that of an accused to present witnesses in his own defense.' ( Chambers v. MississippiSearch
-
Brookhart v. JanisSearch
-
Doughty v. StateSearch
-
Cross v. UnitedSearch
-
claims. But the Appellate Court of Illinois had already reached that holding in an identical case. See People v. DouthitSearch
-
the state court's failure to exercise that power in a particular case does not bar review in this Court. Williams v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Sullivan v. LittleSearch
-
People v. VisnackSearch
-
the Appellate Court below declined to exercise this discretion and deemed the waiver binding. Since, under Williams v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Pennsylvania v. RitchieSearch
-
of the Compulsory Process Clause is also grounded in the general constitutional guarantee of due process. See Chambers v. MississippiSearch
-
Rock v. ArkansasSearch
-
of criminal defense evidence undermines the central truthseeking aim of our criminal justice system, see United States v. NixonSearch
-
Crane, supra, at 476 U. S. 689 -690, testimony by persons who are mentally infirm, see Washington v. TexasSearch
-
supra, at 388 U. S. 23 , n. 21, or evidence that represents a half-truth, see United States v. NoblesSearch
-
such as a rule against introducing the testimony of an alleged accomplice, Washington v. TexasSearch
-
of the relevant case law, this Court defined the standard governing the constitutional inquiry just last Term in Rock v. ArkansasSearch
-
He argues only that he should not be completely precluded from introducing the testimony. Nobles and Brown v. UnitedSearch
-
The District Court did not bar the investigator's testimony. Cf. Washington v. TexasSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Taylor v. IllinoisSearch
-
Brown v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. Washington v. TexasSearch
-
and Chambers v. MississippiSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial