Section X. The Right to Confront Witnesses and to Have Compulsory Process Right of Confrontation General Concept to insure reliability of the evidence in criminal trial to insure fairness in process against D General Requirements of the oath witnesses to be sworn ? people don?t lie under oath child witness and incompetent witness problem to have accuser face-to-face witnesses won?t lie as easily if made to face the D problem of child trauma to witness Case: Coy v. Iowa, (1988): no showing of need Case: Md. v. Craig, (1990): showing of particularized need to subject the testimony to cross examination greatest engine for finding the truth yet invented problems with hearsay problems with courts limiting questioning of lawyers (4) Current Law: 1. distinction between testimonial and nontestimonial 2. Case: Crawford v. Washington, (2004) 3. Case: Davis v. Washington, (2006) 4. Case: Melendez-Diaz v. Mass., (2009) (6) Limits on Cross Examination 1. privileges and rules of evidence issues 2. Case: Davis v. Alaska, (1974) Right to Compulsory Process Historical roots Asking the court to subpoena witnesses Contemporary meaning Generally relates to allowing defendant to put on his case in the manner the defense team chooses without undue interference from the State Order of proof Case: Brooks v. Tennessee, (1972) III. Putting it All Together: the Basic Right to Fairness (A) Cases: (1) Chambers v. Mississippi, (1973) (2) Holmes v. S.C., (2006)
Want to see the other 1 page(s) in 3400 - Section 10.doc?JOIN TODAY FOR FREE!