Citation network
Portuondo Vs. Agard
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 06, 2000
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. 61 (2000) October Term, 1999 Syllabus Portuondo, Superintendent, Fishkill Correctional Facility V. AgardSearch
-
respondent's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. The Court declines to extend to such comments the rationale of Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
that of any 62 Syllabus other witness-a rule that serves the trial's truth-seeking function, Perry v. LeekeSearch
-
them infirm. Nor does the fact that they came at summation rather than at a point earlier in the trial. In Reagan v. UnitedSearch
-
presence at trial because New York law requires him to be present. Respondent points to the Court's decision in Doyle v. OhioSearch
-
Court reversed one of the convictions for possession of a weapon but affirmed the remaining convictions. People v. AgardSearch
-
App. Div. 2d 401, 606 N. Y. S. 2d 239 (2d Dept. 1993). The New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. People v. AgardSearch
-
his Sixth Amendment right to be present at trial and to be confronted with the witnesses against him, see Illinois v. AllenSearch
-
U. S. 400 (1965), and his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to testify on his own behalf, see Rock v. ArkansasSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
boils down to a request that we extend to comments of the type the prosecutor made here the rationale of Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
one in which the practice was so much as challenged until after our decision in Griffin. See, e. g., State v. CassidySearch
-
People v. BuckeySearch
-
Jenkins v. UnitedSearch
-
defendant's silence at trial against him-and upon request the court must instruct the jury to that effect. See Carter v. KentuckySearch
-
Ibid. (quoting People v. ModestoSearch
-
see also United States v. RobinsonSearch
-
quoting Baxter v. PalmigianoSearch
-
Brown v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 272 , 282 (1989). See also Reagan v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 157 U. S. 301 , 305 (1895). Respondent points to our opinion in Geders v. UnitedSearch
-
right to counsel. With respect to issues of credibility, however, no such special treatment has been accorded. Jenkins v. AndersonSearch
-
that has the effect of discouraging the exercise of constitutional rights.''' Id., at 236 (quoting Chaffin v. StynchcombeSearch
-
just like any other witness.''' Jenkins, supra, at 235-236 (quoting Grunewald Indeed, in Brooks v. TennesseeSearch
-
App. 25-27. What Reagan permitted-a generic 3 The dissent maintains that Reagan v. UnitedSearch
-
testify. Mter quoting the Court's description, in an earlier case, of the reasons for the statutory right, see Wilson v. UnitedSearch
-
at 613-614. It is eminently reasonable to consider that a questionable manner of constitutional exegesis, see Mitchell v. UnitedSearch
-
after the defense has closed is in a long tradition that continues to the present day. See, e. g., United States v. JonesSearch
-
United States v. HillSearch
-
rights, it has already been disposed of by our determination that those Amendments were not infringed. Cf. Graham v. ConnorSearch
-
prosecution violated his right to due process by commenting on that presence. He asserts that our decision in Doyle v. OhioSearch
-
here (he asserts) had no choice but to be present at the trial. Though this is far from certain, see, e. g., People v. AikenSearch
-
of fundamental unfairness for which the Constitution requires that a state criminal conviction be set aside, cf. Rose v. LundySearch
-
right into an automatic burden on his credibility. I dissent from the Court's disposition. In 77 Griffin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
we held that a defendant's refusal to testify at trial may not be used as evidence of his guilt. In Doyle v. OhioSearch
-
see also United States v. ChackoSearch
-
their prior consistent statements but may introduce such statements to rebut claims of recent fabrication. See People v. McDanielSearch
-
The Court's only support for its choice to ignore the distinction between summation and cross-examination is Reagan v. UnitedSearch
-
did refer to the 1878 statute at issue in Reagan, but it did so only in connection with its discussion of Wilson v. UnitedSearch
-
and we have held that some provisions of the Sixth Amendment do not apply in petty prosecutions. See, e. g., Lewis v. UnitedSearch
-
that generic tailoring arguments have traditionally been thought unproblematic. Ante, at 65-66. 4 In Brooks v. TennesseeSearch
-
prosecutors to make accusations of tailoring based on the defendant's constant attendance at trial. See, e. g., State v. CassidySearch
-
State v. JonesSearch
-
Hart v. UnitedSearch
-
State v. HemingwaySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial