Citation network
United States Vs. Scheffer
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 31, 1998
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. 303 (1998) October Term, 1997 Syllabus United States V. SchefferSearch
-
restrictions to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process. See, e. g., Rock v. ArkansasSearch
-
s precedents. The three cases principally relied upon by the Court of Appeals, Rock, supra, at 57, Washington v. TexasSearch
-
U. S. 14 , 23, and Chambers v. MississippiSearch
-
s right to present relevant evidence is not unlimited, but rather is subject to reasonable restrictions.4 See Taylor v. IllinoisSearch
-
accord, Michigan v. LucasSearch
-
Washington v. TexasSearch
-
see also Daubert v. MerrellSearch
-
leaving its admission or exclusion to the discretion of district courts under Daubert, see, e. g., United States v. PosadoSearch
-
United States v. CordobaSearch
-
CA9 1997), at least one Federal Circuit has recently reaffirmed its per se ban, see United States v. SanchezSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
United States v. MessinaSearch
-
F.3d 36 , 42 (CA2 1997). Most States maintain per se rules excluding polygraph evidence. See, e. g., State v. PorterSearch
-
People v. GardSearch
-
Perkins v. StateSearch
-
and state courts were uniform in categorically ruling polygraph evidence inadmissible under the test set forth in Frye v. UnitedSearch
-
scientific evidence must gain the general acceptance of the relevant expert community to be admissible. In Daubert v. MerrellSearch
-
neither federal nor state courts found any Sixth Amendment obstacle to the categorical rule. See, e. g., Bashor v. RisleySearch
-
People v. PriceSearch
-
state and federal courts continue to express doubt about whether such evidence is reliable. See, e. g., United States v. MessinaSearch
-
United States v. PosadoSearch
-
State v. PorterSearch
-
United States v. BarnardSearch
-
means of avoiding itY D The three of our precedents upon which the Court of Appeals principally relied, Rock v. ArkansasSearch
-
and Chambers v. MississippiSearch
-
was allegedly able to remember the facts of the killing only after having her memory hypnotically refreshed. See Rock v. ArkansasSearch
-
from introducing his accomplice's testimony that the accomplice had in fact committed the crime. See Washington v. TexasSearch
-
and its hearsay rule that excluded the testimony of three persons to whom that witness had confessed. See Chambers v. MississippiSearch
-
given to the trial court in admitting or excluding scientific evidence is not a constitutional mandate, see Daubert v. MerrellSearch
-
the stronger evidence is inadmissible. Under the now discredited reasoning in a case decided 75 years ago, Frye v. UnitedSearch
-
inadmissible.2 Well reasoned opinions are concluding, consistently with this Court's decisions in Daubert v. MerrellSearch
-
Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U. S. 579 (1993), and General Electric Co. v. JoinerSearch
-
United States v. PiccinonnaSearch
-
the foundation for admission of favorable polygraph evidence. United States v. GipsonSearch
-
see also, e. g., United States v. CarterSearch
-
common-law rule categorically excluding defense evidence in treason and felony cases.10 Our holding in Washington v. TexasSearch
-
Few rights are more fundamental than that of an accused to present witnesses in his own defense, see, e. g., Chambers v. MississippiSearch
-
Taylor v. IllinoisSearch
-
of unreliability was unconstitutional.12 The blanket rule of inadmissibility held invalid in Wash ington v. TexasSearch
-
Benson v. UnitedSearch
-
Syllabus United States V. SchefferSearch
-
See Taylor v. IllinoisSearch
-
Michigan v. LucasSearch
-
Daubert v. MerrellSearch
-
Frye v. UnitedSearch
-
In Daubert v. MerrellSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial