Citation network
Maryland Vs. Craig
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 27, 1990
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. 836 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Maryland v. CraigSearch
-
U.S. 836 (1990) Maryland v. CraigSearch
-
accused and accusers, it found that the State's showing was insufficient to reach the high threshold required by Coy v. IowaSearch
-
Clause would abrogate virtually every hearsay exception, a result long rejected as unintended and too extreme, Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
in a manner sensitive to its purpose and to the necessities of trial and the adversary process. See, e.g., Kirby v. UnitedSearch
-
in protecting minor victims of sex crimes from further trauma and embarrassment, see, e.g., Globe Newspaper Co. v. SuperiorSearch
-
We observed in Coy v. IowaSearch
-
U.S. at 487 U. S. 1016 (citing Kentucky v. StincerSearch
-
Pennsylvania v. RitchieSearch
-
California v. GreenSearch
-
Dowdell v. UnitedSearch
-
Kirby v. UnitedSearch
-
Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
defendants the absolute right to a face-to-face meeting with witnesses against them at trial. Indeed, in Coy v. IowaSearch
-
Lee v. IllinoisSearch
-
Faretta v. CaliforniaSearch
-
quoting Pointer v. TexasSearch
-
we have nevertheless recognized that it is not the sine qua non of the confrontation right. See Delaware v. FenstererSearch
-
Id. at 64 (quoting Chambers v. MississippiSearch
-
may be admitted against a defendant despite the lack of any face-to-face encounter with the accused. See Bourjaily v. UnitedSearch
-
must also be interpreted in the context of the necessities of trial and the adversary process. See, e.g., Illinois v. AllenSearch
-
Taylor v. UnitedSearch
-
one. Globe Newspaper Co. v. SuperiorSearch
-
New York v. FerberSearch
-
FCC v. PacificaSearch
-
Ginsberg v. NewSearch
-
necessary to protect the welfare of the minor. See 457 U.S. at 457 U. S. 608 -609. This Term, in Osborne v. OhioSearch
-
Wildermuth v. StateSearch
-
Hochheiser v. SuperiorSearch
-
witness would be traumatized, not by the courtroom generally, but by the presence of the defendant. See, e.g., State v. WilhiteSearch
-
State v. BonelloSearch
-
State v. DavidsonSearch
-
Commonwealth v. LudwigSearch
-
State v. MannionSearch
-
State v. SheppardSearch
-
procedure, see Wildermuth v. StateSearch
-
U. S. 1012 , 487 U. S. 1016 (1988), quoting California v. GreenSearch
-
Quoting Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
The right to confront is not the right to confront in a manner that disrupts the trial. Illinois v. AllenSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial