Citation network
Giles Vs. California
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 25, 2008
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
-
Syllabus October Term, 2007 Giles V. CaliforniaSearch
-
against them, except in cases where an exception to the confrontation right was recognized at the founding. Crawford v. WashingtonSearch
-
Davis v. WashingtonSearch
-
Ginsburg, J., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens and Kennedy, JJ., joined. Giles v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Giles V. CaliforniaSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 07-6053 Dwayne Giles, Petitioner V. CaliforniaSearch
-
jury convicted Giles of first-degree murder. He appealed. While his appeal was pending, this Court decided in Crawford v. WashingtonSearch
-
declarations made by a speaker who was both on the brink of death and aware that he was dying. See, e.g. , King v. WoodcockSearch
-
State v. MoodySearch
-
United States v. VeitchSearch
-
King v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Queen v. ScaifeSearch
-
Drayton v. WellsSearch
-
the unconfronted statements because the defendant committed the murder for which he was on trial. Consider King v. WoodcockSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
and admitted her statements into evidence, 1 E. East, Pleas of the Crown 356 (1803). King v. DinglerSearch
-
Lewis v. StateSearch
-
Montgomery v. StateSearch
-
Nelson v. StateSearch
-
Smith v. StateSearch
-
Leach, at 501, 168 Eng. Rep., at 352. Similarly, in Smith v. StateSearch
-
trouble of putting on evidence to show that the crime victim had not believed he could recover. See, e.g., King v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Gibson v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Anthony v. StateSearch
-
M. Bacon, A New Abridgment of the Law 313 (1736). As the plurality said in Dutton v. EvansSearch
-
outside the context of deliberate witness tampering. This Court first addressed forfeiture in Reynolds v. UnitedSearch
-
the defendant had acted with the purpose of preventing the witness from testifying was decided in 1985. United States v. RoucoSearch
-
U. S., at 47, n. 2, no such limit was applied or expressed in early wrongful-procurement cases. In Rex v. BarberSearch
-
State v. LewisSearch
-
into evidence. Williams v. StateSearch
-
a thinly veiled invitation to overrule Crawford and adopt an approach not much different from the regime of Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
unconfronted testimony simply because Parliament was not bound by the rules of evidence for felony cases, see Crawford v. WashingtonSearch
-
statements of co-conspirators admissible against the defendant under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E). Bourjaily v. UnitedSearch
-
the test under Ohio v. RobertsSearch
-
of privileges designed to prevent criminal conviction of the innocent. The State is at no risk of that. Giles v. CaliforniaSearch
-
from the statements made during police questioning in response to the report of domestic violence in Hammon v. IndianaSearch
-
decided with Davis v. WashingtonSearch
-
where the applicability of that Clause is not at issue, I join the Court in vacating the decision below. Giles v. CaliforniaSearch
-
s analysis of the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing. Giles v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Souter, J., Concurring in Part Giles V. CaliforniaSearch
-
confrontation is forfeited, and more is supplied by showing intent to prevent the witness from testifying. Cf. Davis v. WashingtonSearch
-
otherwise the right would in practical terms boil down to a measure of reliable hearsay, a view rejected in Crawford v. WashingtonSearch
-
E thus fits the rationale that equity requires and the historical record supports. Giles v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Breyer, J., Dissenting Giles V. CaliforniaSearch
-
Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens and Justice Kennedy join, dissenting. In Crawford v. WashingtonSearch
-
Crawford v. WashingtonSearch
-
Dwayne Giles, Petitioner V. CaliforniaSearch
-
King v. WoodcockSearch
-
Consider King v. WoodcockSearch
-
King v. DinglerSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial