Citation network
White Vs. Illinois
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 15, 1992
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. 346 (1992) October Term, 1991 Syllabus White V. IllinoisSearch
-
Court affirmed his conviction, rejecting his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause challenge that was based on Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
U. S. 56 . The court concluded that this Court's later decision in United States v. InadiSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
role in restricting the admission of hearsay testimony, is foreclosed by this Court's decisions, see, e. g., Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
practical benefits while imposing pointless litigation costs. pp. 353-357. (c) White misplaces his reliance on Coy v. IowaSearch
-
U. S. 1012 , and Maryland v. CraigSearch
-
Confrontation Clause 3 challenge, a challenge based principally on language contained in this Court's decision in Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
U. S. 56 (1980). It concluded that our later decision in United States v. InadiSearch
-
testimony, is foreclosed by our prior cases. The discussions in these cases, going back at least as far as Mat tox v. UnitedSearch
-
California v. GreenSearch
-
Justice. See Dutton v. EvansSearch
-
sufficient indicia of reliability to satisfy the reliability requirement posed by the Confrontation Clause. See Idaho v. WrightSearch
-
Bourjaily v. UnitedSearch
-
p. 195 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1976), and may date to the late 17th century. See Thompson v. TrevanionSearch
-
U. S. 1012, 1020 (1988) (quoting Kentucky v. StincerSearch
-
argument, petitioner presses upon us two recent decisions involving child testimony in childsexual-assault cases, Coy v. IowaSearch
-
supra, and Maryland v. CraigSearch
-
a defendant within the meaning of the Clause, see, e. g., Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
Lee v. IllinoisSearch
-
There is virtually no evidence of what the drafters of the Confrontation Clause intended it to mean. See California v. GreenSearch
-
modified). The Wigmore view was endorsed by Justice Harlan in his opinion concurring in the result in Dutton v. EvansSearch
-
United States 662 (1833), and this Court previously has recognized the common-law origins of the right, see Salinger v. UnitedSearch
-
indicated that the primary purpose of the Clause was to prevent the abuses that had occurred in England. See Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
on this point.1 As a matter of plain 1 The only recent decision to address this question explicitly was Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
id., at 63 (citing California v. GreenSearch
-
Clause limits admission of hearsay evidence have no basis in the text of the Sixth Amendment. Ever since Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
ibid. See, e. g., Idaho v. WrightSearch
-
as a means of depriving criminal defendants of the benefit of the adversary process, see, e. g., Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
an approach would be consistent with the vast majority of our cases, since virtually all of them decided before Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
the hearsay context. Furthermore, this interpretation would avoid the problem posed by the 2 See, e. g., Reynolds v. UnitedSearch
-
Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
Motes v. UnitedSearch
-
Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
Syllabus White V. IllinoisSearch
-
Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
and Maryland v. CraigSearch
-
Justice. See Dutton v. EvansSearch
-
the Confrontation Clause. See Idaho v. WrightSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial