Citation network
Lilly Vs. Virginia
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 10, 1999
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. 116 (1999) October Term, 1998 Syllabus Lilly V. VirginiaSearch
-
and his arguments based on Williamson v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 512 U. S. 594 , and the Confrontation Clause opinion of Lee v. IllinoisSearch
-
Justice Stevens, Joined by Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer, Concluded in Parts III, IV, and V. ThatSearch
-
Mark's hearsay statements do not meet the requirements for admission set forth in Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
reliability of evidence against a defendant by subjecting it to rigorous testing in an adversary proceeding, Maryland v. CraigSearch
-
U. S. 836 , 845, as by crossexamination of a declarant, see California v. GreenSearch
-
and cross-examination at a trial. Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
White v. IllinoisSearch
-
of constitutional law such as whether a hearsay statement has sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness. See Ornelas v. UnitedSearch
-
contained in formalized testimonial material, such as affidavits, depositions, prior testimony, or confessions, White v. IllinoisSearch
-
special suspicion given a codefendant's strong motivation to implicate the defendant and exonerate himself. Lee v. IllinoisSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Pp. 144-148. 2. The Virginia Supreme Court did not analyze the confession under the second prong of the Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
The court then turned to petitioner's Confrontation Clause challenge. It began by relying on our opinion in White v. IllinoisSearch
-
his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. He expanded his Sixth Amendment argument in his reply brief and cited Lee v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 530 (1986), and Williamson v. UnitedSearch
-
sufficed to raise in the Supreme Court of Virginia the constitutionality of admitting Mark's statements. See Taylor v. IllinoisSearch
-
to submit to cross-examination, the 'greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.''' California v. GreenSearch
-
footnote and citation omitted). In our most recent case interpreting the Confrontation Clause, White v. IllinoisSearch
-
we considered it foreclosed by our prior cases. Instead, we adhered to our general framework, summarized in Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
the admission of statements falling within a firmly rooted hearsay exception since the Court's recognition in Mattox v. UnitedSearch
-
Lee v. IllinoisSearch
-
State v. KirbySearch
-
State v. CowanSearch
-
the first category above) from using them against other criminal defendants (the third category). In Bruton v. UnitedSearch
-
as a statement against his penal interest did not justify its use as evidence against another person. See Gray v. MarylandSearch
-
Richardson 129 V. MarshSearch
-
Cruz v. NewSearch
-
were sufficiently reliable to warrant their admission at the trial of someone other than the declarant. See Donnelly v. UnitedSearch
-
pp. 289-290 (3d ed. 1940). See also Scolari v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. AnnunziatoSearch
-
Hines v. CommonwealthSearch
-
In Crawford v. UnitedSearch
-
Id., at 204. Over 30 years ago, we applied this principle to the Sixth Amendment. We held in Douglas v. AlabamaSearch
-
dissenting).2 We have adhered to this approach in construing the Federal Rules of Evidence. Thus, in Williamson v. UnitedSearch
-
The only arguable exception to this unbroken line of cases arose in our plurality opinion in Dutton v. EvansSearch
-
Vt. Rule Evid. 804(b)(3) (1998). See also State v. MyersSearch
-
the Federal Rule, see n. 3, supra, and adhere to our interpretation of that rule in Williamson. See Smith v. StateSearch
-
United States v. HammondSearch
-
State v. SmithSearch
-
State v. MatuskySearch
-
State v. FordSearch
-
State v. CastleSearch
-
Miles v. StateSearch
-
statements against the penal interest of the declarant to be used at criminal trials. See, e. g., Ellison v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Va. 404, 247 S. E. 2d 685 (1978). That Virginia relaxed that portion of its hearsay law when it decided Chandler v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Syllabus Lilly V. VirginiaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial