Document: 399 U.S. 149 90 S.Ct. 1930 26 L.Ed.2d 489 State of CALIFORNIA, Petitioner,v.John Anthony GREEN. No. 387. Argued April 20, 1970. Decided June 23, William E. James, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. Solicitor Gen. Erwin Griswold the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave Court. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., Washington, D.C., respondent. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered opinion 1 Section 1235 California Evidence Code, effective January 1, 1967, provides that '(e)vidence a statement made witness is not inadmissible hearsay rule if inconsistent with his testimony at hearing and offered in compliance 770.'1 In People v. Johnson, 68 Cal.2d 646, Cal.Rptr. 599, 441 P.2d 111 (1968), cert. denied, 393 1051, 89 679, 21 693 (1969), Supreme Court held prior statements were subject to cross-examination when originally made, could be introduced under this section prove charges against defendant without violating defendant's right confrontation guaranteed Sixth Amendment applicable States Fourteenth Amendment. case now before us applied same ban preliminary hearing, oath full an adequately counseled defendant. We cannot agree court two reasons, one which involves rejection holding Johnson. 2 * Melvin Porter, 16-year-old minor, was arrested selling marihauna undercover police officer. Four days after arrest, while custody juvenile authorities, Porter named respondent Green supplier. As recounted later Officer Wade, claimed had called him earlier month, asked sell some 'stuff' or 'grass,' afternoon personally shopping bag containing 29 'baggies' marihuana. It from supply sale A week later, testified respondent's hearing. He again supplier, although he instead delivering marihuana, showed where pick up bag, hidden bushes Green's parents' house. Porter's story subjected extensive counsel—the counsel who represented subsequent trial. At conclusion charged furnishing marihuana minor violation law. 3 Respondent's trial took place months sitting jury. The State's chief young Porter. But time words Court, proved 'markedly evasive uncooperative on stand.' Green, 70 654, 657, 75 782, 783, 451 422, 423 (1969). unidentified 'stuff.' admitted obtaining shortly thereafter plastic sold. pressed whether been uncertain how obtained primarily because 'acid' (LSD), taken 20 minutes phoned. unable remember events followed phone call, drugs prevented distinguishing fact fantasy. See, e.g., App. 7—11, 24—25. 4 various points during direct examination, prosecutor read excerpts testimony. This evidence § truth matter contained therein. With memory 'refreshed' testimony, 'guessed' indeed backyard home, given money its On cross-examination, however, indicated it 'mostly' refreshed, rather than themselves, still unsure actual episode. See 25. Later trial, Wade testified, relating also substantive evidence. making statement, 59, insisted telling then believed both hearing; but claiming inability events. 5 Respondent convicted. District Appeal reversed, use asserted therein, denied Court's recent decision supra. affirmed, finding itself 'impelled' decisions hold unconstitutional insofar permitted witness, even though granted petition certiorari, 396 1001, 547, 24 492 (1970). II 6 construed Confrontation Clause require exclusion court's view, neither cross-examine concerning current nor opportunity satisfied commands Clause. think wrong counts. 7 Positing posed instance gave prior, out-of-court statements,2 court, authority supra, belated 'is adequate substitute contemporaneous original different tribunal.' 659, Cal.Rptr., 785, P.2d, 425. disagree. 8 Code represents considered choice Legislature3 between opposing positions extent witness' may rules orthodox adopted most jurisdictions,4 has are usual reasons have led statements: oath; declarant statement; jury observe declarant's demeanor statement. Accordingly, show matters can appropriate limiting instructions impeach credibility changed 9 contrast, minority view jurisdictions5 supported legal commentators proposals codify law evidence6 would permit theory dangers largely nonexistent testifies 'The whole purpose Hearsay already (because) present (and) (t)here ample test basis former statement.'7 10 Our task decide these positions, purely evidence, sounder. issue considerably narrower constitutional 'to confronted witnesses him' necessarily change reflect described above. While readily conceded generally designed protect similar values, quite thing suggest overlap complete nothing more less codification their exceptions they existed historically common never established such congruence; indeed, we once found values arguably recognized exception. Barber Page, 390 719, 88 1318, 255 (1968); Pointer Texas, 380 400, 85 1065, 13 923 (1965). converse equally true: merely long-established does lead automatic rights denied.8 11 Given similarity protected, modification create new admission defendant, will often raise questions compatibility confrontation. Such attention for, basic scope of, protections 12 origin development traced others need detail here.9 sufficient note particular vice impetus claim practice trying defendants 'evidence' consisted solely ex parte affidavits depositions secured examining magistrates, thus denying challenge accuser face-to-face encounter front trier fact. Prosecuting attorneys 'would frequently allege prisoner upon them prove. proof usually reading depositions, confessions accomplices, litters, like; occasioned frequent demands 'accusers,' i.e. him, brought face face. *'10 objections appear aimed failure call confront So far appears, no objection receiving statements, so long repeat explain repudiate any conflicting stories 14 own seem early date literal 'confront' forms core furthered Clause: 15 primary object provision question prevent affidavits, sometimes civil cases, being used lieu personal examination accused opportunity, only testing recollection sifting conscience compelling stand order look judge manner gives worthy belief.' Mattox 156 237, 242—243, 337, 339, 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895). 16 Viewed historically, then, there good reason conclude violated admitting testifying cross-examination. 17 comparing purposes alleged Confrontation: (1) insures give oath—thus impressing seriousness guarding lie possibility penalty perjury; (2) forces submit 'greatest engine ever invented discovery truth';11 (3) permits fate aiding assessing credibility. 18 is, course, true circumstances none protections. all practical regains lost If admits his, other danger faulty reproduction negligible confident witness. Thus, concerned, must affirm, deny, qualify very circumstance become explanation inaccuracy—an expected understand take into account deciding which, either, truth. 19 Second, easily shown crucial significance assured successful hardly hope accomplish accomplished different, story, and—in case—one favorable share serve constitutionally main substituting timely seems '(f)alse apt harden unyielding blows proportion reconsideration influence suggestions others, whose interest be, maintain falsehood truth.' Saporen, 205 Minn. 358, 362, 285 N.W. 898, 901 (1939). That danger, disappears that, 'hardening,' softened point repudiates it.12 longer identical faced hence examined 'hostile' giving prosecution. difference, lessening, actually enhance ability attack For should willing suggested explanations inaccuracy perception undue haste recounting event. Under circumstances, likely hampered effectively attacking comes time. Similar discount foreclosed viewing first relates about assume position value chance evaluate either disavows qualifies alerted inconsistency stories, sharply focused determining reflects apparently lied once, simply too lacking warrant believing story. violated, relevant resolving forever lost. 22 better somehow whisked magically back gruelling see imagine 'a position,' afford satisfactory evaluating issue, evidence13 convinces ultimate much touchstone 23 Finally, our interpreting requires excluding available concern cases precisely opposite situation—situations absence These situations arisen through application number traditional 'exceptions' rule, introduction despite possesses indicia 'reliability' incapable admitted, good-faith efforts State, way secure declarant.14 exceptions, dispensing altogether 'confrontation' several occasions careful scrutiny 1065 (1965), example, transcript himself, Phillips, left jurisdiction did 'because Phillips' petitioner affording Phillips,' U.S., 407, S.Ct., 1070, rights. Similarly, 1318 absent incarcerated federal prison, 'unavailability' exception rules. justify denial effort obtain presence allegedly 'unavailable' 25 occasion map out determine validity permitting statements. absent, testify anything, support problem. Douglas Alabama, 415, 1074, 934 decided day Pointer, reversed conviction prosecution record confession supposed accomplice, Loyd, refused self-incrimination grounds. problem arose Loyd cross-examined place, strongly suggests nonexistent: 'In case, petitioner's plainly imputed him. (S)ince (the State's) tended confession, genuineness itself. 27 'Hence, possible affirmed his.' 419—420, 1077. 28 Again, Bruton 391 123, 1620, 476 codefendant's implicating Bruton, co-defendant stand. emphasized error 'does tested cross-examination,' 136, 1628, suggesting able co-defendant.15 Cf. Harrington California, 395 250, 252—253, 1726, 1727—1728, 284 Indeed, Bruton's refusal regard capable curing error, little difference Constitution concerned impeachment purposes, well. find nothing, history Clause, compels reached California's 1235. Contrary judgment concedes defend otherwise version question, thusopening himself stories. III 30 admissible wholly apart closely approximating those surround typical trial; every proceedings conducted judicial tribunal, equipped provide hearings. would, think, unavailable, produce do result follow produced. 31 ago unavailable violate involved died second instant significantly 1069 noted '(t)he full-fledged cross-examine.' And 725—726, 1322 noting ordinarily searching exploration merits 'there justification satisfies demand clause *.' limited nature hearing—the afforded substantial behind requirement, live fault State. Compare Motes 178 458, 993, 44 1150 (1900). 32 Page indicates produces swears state courts restrict resort sworn matter, untenable construe bar exposed fact, cross-examination.16 physically unproducible, here introduce witness; produced swore tendered Whether consistent loss memory, privilege compulsory self-incrimination, answer, prohibited relying Green.17 IV 33 There narrow lurking admissibility Wade. addressed itself, occasion. Part makes clear, distinguish among given. respect past versions event, make admissible, casual, off-hand remark stranger, carefully recorded Here, occurred telephoned failed important 34 apparent lapse affected critical case18 ripe juncture. focus precise irrelevant broader erroneous premise whatever Nor party question. Its resolution depends unique facts record, reluctant proceed views what discloses issue. What more, since barred reception pose harmless-error appropriately resolved instance. remand invalid face, choose dispose grounds raised passed court; ruling 1235, deliberately put aside sufficiency sustain conviction.19 35 therefore vacate further opinion. ordered. 36 Judgment vacated remanded. 37 MARSHALL part case. 38 BLACKMUN consideration Chief BURGER, concurring. 40 I join fully WHITE'S add comment emphasize importance allowing experiment innovate, especially area criminal justice. standards procedures tried success guide Congress. 41 statute, recently evidence1 observes, advocated leading commentators. Two Kentucky2 Wisconsin,3 within year embraced doctrines decisions. None yet experience innovations sound, wise, workable. striking down done mistaken belief imposed rigid limits area. indicates, erroneous. statute meets tests Amendments, accordingly, wisdom properly California; jurisdictions undoubtedly watch interest. demonstrate drafted, amendment, need, dictates absolute uniformity States. Federal intended 'ramrod' compel conformity nonconstitutional standards. 42 HARLAN, 43 today preclude declaration, agree.1 reverse demonstrates, approach broadly seen fit do, squarely understandable misconception, things, numerous old recent, indiscriminately equated 'cross-examination.'2 Roberts Russell, 392 293, 1921, 1100 (1965); Brookhart Janis, 384 86 1245, 314 (1966); Smith Illinois, 129, 748, 956 Bridges Wixon, 326 135, 65 1443, 2103 (1945); Salinger 272 542, 548, 47 173, 175, 71 398 (1926) (dictum); Reynolds 98 145, 244 (1879); (1895); (1900); Kirby 174 47, 574, 890 (1899); Dowdell 221 325, 330, 590, 592, 55 753 (1911).3 45 have, my ambiguous 'constitutionalizes' 46 cross-examine, transplant ganglia body stultifying effect course aspect systems labored, today, opinion, firmly eschews course. Since, imperatively demonstrates taking fresh concept of'confrontation,' decisis allowed way, albeit presently controlling vintage.4 suggests, faded parchment. History insight Commentators prone slide 48 Against amorphous backdrop reach conclusions. First, reaches farther declarations seeks deemed law, surely agreeable 'due process,' framework kind judged. scarcely takes umbrella common-law exceptions. 49 begin Amendment, defer until Parts principles 50 Framers understood embodiment settled usage dissenting Baldwin New York, 117, 1914 scant culled sources something exclude hearsay, term assumption announcing principle meaning well constrained accept dicta 51 text reads: prosecutions, shall enjoy him.' Simply English confer meet trial.5 extrajudicial 'witness,' susceptible interpreted blanket prohibition 52 Neither polar readings satisfactory, compelling. guarantees colonial constitutions6 appears assumed included Bill Rights added ratification.7 Congressmen drafted amendments political consequences clauses paid definition guarantees. debate along rest package rights—to notice, counsel, process—all incidents adversarial proceeding evolved 17th 18th centuries.8 guarantee thought, process, constitutionalize defense know it, always enjoyed accused, late century argue completely case.9 H. Stephen, Trial Sir Walter Raleigh,' Transactions Royal Historical Society 172, 184 (4th ser. Vol. 2, 1919); F. Heller, 106—107 (1951). glimmer light thought shed brief congressional colloquy companion process. broad sweeping qualified availability requirement. After floor, annals report follows: 53 'Mr. Burke moved amend proposition power off next session, provided witnesses, whom process served, material defence. 54 Hartley said, securing Government could; remainder discretion court. Smith, South Carolina, regulation come in, Judicial system.' Annals Cong. 756. (Emphasis added.) 56 Professor Heller's assertion book attributing intent 'introduction cross-examine,' 105. ascertain, thesis finds assumption, traceable Hadley,10 that: originate gained recognition abuses Raleigh.' Id., 104. approach, resting essentially assertion,11 persuasive historical reading, tenable abridged dying-declaration exception, was, according extant exclusionary ratified.12 57 Wigmore's ambulatory view—that courts—rests citation, attempts settle ground infirm logic.13 consequence rendering meaningless assuredly sense meant enduring guarantee. inconceivable licensed judiciary existence creating unlimited 58 From information tentatively concluded barrier flagrant abuses, trials anonymous accusers, absentee witnesses. ordain sanction doubtful, notwithstanding equate hearsay. Rather, having principle, anticipated supplemented, judge-made prevailing B 59 Precedent.—The tending underlies right, discussed above, confirmed circumspect analysis Court.14 60 consider length submitted deposition affidavit. (1899).15 context Brown oft-quoted passage set forth objective guarantee, prevention 'depositions 339. (1911); Snyder Massachusetts, 291 97, 107, 332 (1934). 61 restricted defended taking, does, metaphysical differentiate first-hand extra-judicial testimonial utterances. problems latter somewhat greater, difficulty establishing accurately said infirmity C. McCormick, 224, 458 (1954). Conceptual difficulties aside, dying declaration supra; Robertson Baldwin, 165 275, 326, 715 (1897), proceeded Amendment.16 62 Notwithstanding language and, implication, holdings can, harmonized confined production testify. explains dispenses requirement 63 rationalization justified logic anchored precedent. West Louisiana, 194 258, 650, 965 (1904), reviewing thread tied together. oath, deponent 'permanently non-resident thereof, attendance procured.' Ibid. Referring, inter alia, Motes, Mattox, Kirby, Reynolds, 'in (were Court), evidence.' 266, 654. uppermost underscored discussion 'upon satisfaction dead, insane, ill attend kept away connivance defendant.' 262, 652.17 64 Recent fallen scores. jurisprudence unsound, elaborated, see, opinions Duncan 171, 1444, 1458, 491 1914, 463, incorporate Due Process While, instance, 'availability' unfortunately, separate, restrictions abuse due reliable trustworthy conviction, n. infra. By incorporating misinterpretation blow created dilemma, bringing potential courts. However illadvised constitutionalization courts, undesirability imposing brittle manifest. fortunes doctrine, evidenced disagreement scholars over trend toward liberalization exceptions,18 unfortunate limit flexibility choke experimentation evolving supra.19 adhere sound expressed Stein 346 156, 196, 73 1077, 1098, 97 1522 (1953): hearsay-evidence subtleties, anomalies ramifications, (should) Amendment.' 66 binding deem correct Amendment's Clause—that available. supra.20 fairness why not, retains essential element attested precedent, recognize greater Furthermore accommodates recognizes obligation accord fullest best defense.21 rare occurs credible result, remains founded 67 Putting moment process' follows, therein asserted. Here That, judgment, perforce conventional characterization affirmatively asserted, Hickory 151 303, 309, 334, 336, 170 (1894); Southern R. Co. Gray, 241 333, 558, 560, 1030 (1916); (1945), technical observe, meaning, veracity. Comment, Model Evidence, 18. fair say reconstruct considerations. available, recall underlying previous recollect given, consequence. fulfilled memory. To sense, facts, stated II, nonetheless satisfied.22 69 turn finally stands unreliable reversal required. Stovall Denno, 388 87 1199 (1967); Thompson City Louisville, 362 199, 80 624, 654 (1960). such, central Simmons 377, 967, 1247 (1968). possibility. accordingly deems want beyond reasonable doubt. re Winship, 397 1068, 368 BRENNAN, dissenting. convicted Health Safety 11532 prohibits narcotics minor. furnished convicted, insufficient guilt. presented three guilt: Officers Dominguez. states, 'he fantasy.' Ante, 152. knowledge offense; content Dominguez incident separate facts.1 72 guilty pretrial unsworn observed factfinder. circumstances—it four arrest agent custody.2 No written remembered words.3 Defense engage examination.4 unobserved factfinder, regarding 1235: first, claims dealt, second, dealt. unconstitutionally restricting incriminating factfinder guilt innocence. 74 'the fact.' 156. encounter, important, accuser's visage, directly J. Wigmore, §§ 1364, 1365 (3d ed. 1940). clear (1895), stressed necessity sift offense unwilling questioned them;5 probe silent attempt expose discredit it. inherent perjury, serious courtroom concerned. Nor, obviously, recounts facts. pertinent events, challenged, defending atmosphere. weigh defends claim. lying sheds accuracy him; probing factual decides honestly reliability If, occurred, might reasonably disregard 76 explicitly 1077—1078, forbids accused's fear self-incrimination. 'petitioner's Loyd's fired shotgun constituted *. (E)ffective his. However, so, relied refuse answer.' 77 significant fails silence compelled remember. Both each discuss satisfied, becomes conduit stale operative observation them. 78 Unlike undecided inadmissibility feigned excluded evidence.6 79 distinguishes compensate objectives differ significantly. argued waived Though rejected argument, doubt stated: 'Moreover, witness) basically right. includes function probable cause exists trial.' 725, 1322.7 81 retroactively Berger 314, 540, 508 held, nonetheless, '(c)learly, 'integrity fact-finding process." 315, 541. 82 Preliminary hearings atypical objectives: 83 prosecutions perfunctory uncontested denouement—an Only television lawyers customarily demolish magistrate's 'probable cause,' burden vastly lighter doubt.' Gibbs, Cal.App.2d 739, 743—744, 471, 475 (1967). 84 follows Cross-examination pales beside reasons. noted, establish cause, innocence doubt; thus, suffices conclusively guilt—or, least, today's decision. eager disclose thorough questioning amount grant gratis Third, schedules accommodate lengthy Fourth, brief, inadequate prepare examination. questioning, force hand. '(L)ost cold subtle undeniable counsel's rhetorical style, pauses emphasis variations tone, rapport jurors, pursues lawyer 'must keep control (t)his mean cross-examiner fight voice, angry. Forensic indignation, verbally, results circumstances.' addition, conduct committing magistrate temper individual using reactions line questioning. performer jurors audience. ignores audience, performances favorably audience.' essentiality truly cross-examination.' Cal.2d, 662—663, 787, 427. rarely approximates virtually nonexistent. Unless negated yet, '(i)t demeanor—attitude manner—is factor weighing axiomatic *, sole weight testimony.' 662, determination transcript. terms equation factors insignificant, themselves fall short satisfying Moreover, atmosphere stakes proceedings. hurried, pro forma average careless measured man perjure lies condemn liberty. short, reality met denies grapple ruling, moreover, unsettling effects future defined problem: 'Were efficient speedy means tend develop full-scale invite consequent delays continuances bring rebuttal gather assure remained challenge. prostitute accepted intolerable resources instance.' 664, 788, 428. Conscientious aware increased likelihood wish full-scale, Coleman 1999, 387 (1970), assistance 'it expedition deprive aid counsel.' White Ragen, 324 760, 764, 978, 980, 1348 (1945). decision, requests delay necessary enable hearing? limits, any, placed defense's device extract necessary, rigorous government witnesses? Do requisites 'effective counsel' examination?8 relies heavily who, so. 'necessity' 'need' evidence,' testimony's rests 'on given—circumstances remain unaffected regardless 167, 16. 91 justifies prosecution's convict, factfinder's assertions bearing admissibility, corrective influences presentation When probability unreliable, admission, confrontation, prejudicially distort factfinding 92 turn, determined influenced developments. disavowed convincing unrealistic intervening 93 developments physical unavailability unwillingness implications Physical neutral factor; instances, cast assertions. Inability hand, them, Honest raises clarity deceit lessens confidence probity shaped avoid dangerous himself. Reliability 94 sum, real pretended casts unreliability coupled impossibility testimonial, affirm conviction. Cal.Evid.Code, (1966). 770 deny (See Ca.Rptr. 111, 114 657 424 comments Law Revision Commission, E.g., Ellis 138 F.2d 612, 616—621 (C.A.8th Cir. 1943); 361—362, 900—901 collected 1018 1940) (hereinafter cited Wigmore) Annot., 133 A.L.R. 1454, 1455—1457 (1941). Jett Commonwealth, 436 S.W.2d 788 (Ky.1969); Gelhaar Wis.2d 230, 163 N.W.2d 609 De Sisto, 329 929 (C.A.2d Cir.) (Friendly, J.), 377 979, 1885, 747 (1964); Block, 618, 620 (L. Hand, 301 690, 793, 1347 (1937); Di Carlo 364, 268 706, 640, 1168 (1925). Dean Wigmore commentator adopt position, abandoning approval, edition Treatise, view. 2. Uniform Rules Rule 503(b) (1942); 63(1) (1953), draft lower Committee Practice Procedure Conference Draft Proposed Courts Magistrates 8—01(c)(2) urged (1954); Maguire, System: Around Through Thicket, Vand.L.Rev. 741, (1961); Morgan, Dangers Application Concept, Harv.L.Rev. 177, 192—196 (1948). 1018. 1967 Term, 63, 236 Note, Rule, Yale L.J. 1434, 1436 6, 455—457; 1364; 179—183. W. Holdsworth,A 177—187, 214—219 (od 1944); Preserving Right Confrontation—A Approach Criminal Trials, 113 U.Pa.L.Rev. 7418 746—747 England (1883). Holdswroth, 9, 225—228. famous example Raleigh treason 1603. Cobham, plot seize throne. received retraction Cobham favor. dispute Raleigh's called, 333—336; Holdsworth, 216—217, 226—228. least author traces reaction 104 1367. Substantive Use Extrajudicial Statements Witnesses U.Rich.L.Rev. 110, 117—118 (1969); '(t)his immediate cross-examination) daily verified lawyers, willingly postpone forum client.' 655, 606, 118 citations sentence books she empirical comparative effectiveness subsequent, opposed timely, favor should, vulnerable generally, 1420—1422. evidentiary 128, 1623, 3, comply (1945)—the deportation based alternative rested agency 151—153, 1451—1452. run 'counter notions system founded,' id., 154, 1452, refer 'orthodox' evidentiary, constitutional, (1894). considerations convictions totally lacking, (1960), declaring advanced contrary dead faith prompted 'necessity.' contrary, argued, relate 'necessity,' 'reliability,' destroyed. 664 11, 428—429 Brief 32. way. 'assumption' another saying reliable—there death assuming Surely protecting interests, jury's assess hears, unlikely off, dissent suggest, died, plea Fifth privilege, 1408, 1409. Even proponents exist apply disclaims opportunities diminished. Falknor, Exceptions, U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 43, N.Y.U.L.Rev. 1101, 1105 (1956). admit 503(b), Comment b, 234 63(1), proposed substance event Magistrates, 8—01(c)(2)(i), Advisory Comm. Notes 119 accords unless 'inconsistent' 119, 121; Westinghouse Electric Corp. Wray Equipment Corp., 286 491, 493 (C.A.1st Cir.), 366 929, 1650, 1043. insubstantial. Conviction almost entirely respect. 49—50. unnecessary additional contentions suppression prejudicial misconduct. 666, 429 ante, 153 18, (Ky.1969). certiorari pending, 389, Misc., O.T.1969. declines remands IV, beneath surface setting, maker briefed sides, now, pendency 21, Dutton Evans, docket. reargument Oct. 15, 1969, Apr. 27, 1970, reargument. 1060, 1494, 682. heard Term. easy involving declined (1953); (1904). incorrectly rationalized. unworkability constitutionalizing stake Swift & Wickham, 382 116, 261, mischief 'perpetuation unworkable rule.' Moragne Marine Lines, 375, 1772, 339 (1970); Boys Markets Retail Clerk's Union, Local 770, 235, 1583, 199 463 Welsh 344 1792, 1798, 308 Desist 394 244, 256, 1030, 1037, 248 Georgia 1877 lends Art. I, 5, 'shall natural provision, phrased individuals appearing Hampshire, North Maryland, Virginia constitutions provision. 22—24 documents reprinted Thorpe, Constitutions passim (1909). provisions. 1397, 127—130 Elliot's Debates 328, 334 (1876). (1789—1790). research me digests debates contain informative right—is correct. 742 Confrontation, Cross-Examination, Prepare Defense, Geo.L.J. 939, 953 review Pollitt, Modern Dress, J.Pub.L. 381 (1959). 1919). discussing Stephen notes, modern reader struck counsel. likewise wished (The was) argument (him) proved. side attended to; needed.' 106—107, remarks Governor Randolph ratification convention reported 467 Hadley, Reform Procedure, Proceedings Academy Political Science 396, 400—401 (1923). Hadley's indicate provoked affidavit infamous Raleigh. there, went reams turned innuendo verdict. 9. light, presumption producing dignifying significance. 105, citing Rottschaefer, Handbook American Constitutional 796 open one, adopted. 130. known enshrined rule. concludes seemingly declarations, impossible literally principles. 130—131. replete equivalent Instead treating like denials infra, employed language, major crime 406—407, 1069. conjured spectre treat with. surprising confrontaton fungible. labels affect Rreliminary Alford 282 687, 218, 624 (1931) (right treated confrontation). portent label emerges fore treatment errors, (1969) (harmless error); Chapman 386 824, 705 Kaufman 217, 226, 227 (collateral relief), incorporation, U.S.C. 2254 An Katzenbach 641, 1717, 828 strictly speaking, involve Kirby's sought perpetrators theft property possession stolen. complain procured defense. analogizing countenance appeared Most supra (confession); 194, 1097, (1953) (1904); cf. Greene McElroy, 360 474, 1400, 1377 Other rubric included, Oliver, 333 257, 499, 682 (1948); 674 (1934) (a viewing); Parker Gladden, 385 363, 468, 420 (1966) (improper bailiff); Turner 379 466, 546, provisions specifically providing unavailable. Const., 1879, ('The Legislature homicide believe trial.'); Colorado 1876, 16; Montana 1889, III, 16, 17; Ohio 1851, 10; Texas 10, amended 1918, Vernon's Ann.St. Interestingly Hopt Utah, 110 202, 262 (1884), speaking wrote surgeon victim surgeon's identity deceased came third party, allusion doubted. remarked, secondary West, indifferent limitations underlie extended precedents express West's thereunder, such. minimized, 1367, desirability questioned. 302—305, 459, 628 634 ALI 502, 503, 231—232 8—03, 173 (liberalized exceptions). Role Rational Scheme Ill.L.Rev. (1940); Chadbourn, Bentham Rule—A Benthamic View 63(4)(c) 932, 942—951 (1962) (Uniform restricted); Hearsay, Rutgers L.Rev. 620, 630 (1956) (commenting Rules); Quick, Wayne 163, 168 (1959) (apparently admissibility). Judges, too, disagreed compare Marshall's Queen Hepburn, Cranch 290, 348 (1813), Story Ellicott Pearl, Pet. 412, 436, (1836), Judge Learned Hand lecture Association Bar Deficiencies Trials Reach Heart Matter, Lectures Legal Topics, 1921—1922, p. (1926). Report Jersey (1963). suffocating creative thinking commentary Commission. Prior 1962 commission free, 63(3) (b)(ii), issues recommended adoption 63(3)(b)(ii). Tentative Recommendation Study Relating (1962), Commission: Reports, Recommendations Studies 454—457 omitted code rely individual's Official Comments 1250 (California Commission 1965). responsible omit final 1965, constitutionalized, innovation. (1931); (1934); (1960); Nixon Herndon, 273 536, 446, 759 (1927), untrustworthy kangaroo (1967), refined. identification—always trial—should infected suggestiveness rise irreparable misidentification. token judge. Kearney, 136 U.S.App.D.C. will, unusual situation entire built entitled ALI, Evidence; alert pitfalls accepting request cautionary instructions. 6.17, Manual Jury Instructions, F.R.D. 601 (missing witnesses). concurrence formed bulk prosecutor's showing adhere, rationalized 'constituted evidence' committed murder. 419, move Douglas. prosecutorial placing prosecutor, effect, eyes acquiescence repudiation. Napue 264, 1173, 1217 (1959); Mooney Holohan, 294 103, 340, 791 (1935). lengths go offer reasonableness. Mullane Central Hanover Trust Co., 306, 652, 865 (1950). expense inconvenience excuse. continuance temporary. Peterson 425 (C.A.5th 657—658, 784, declared May 12, 'when custody, knew JOHN GREEN implicated circulation *' Goldberg Kelly, 254, 269, 1011, 1021, 287 second-hand caseworker deficiencies; gathers charge ineligibility rests, recipient's controversy safely offense. met, contradicts here, resolve anomalous 164. guilt, distinctions stating adapted answer required convinced 'beyond doubt,' fortiori adduced, doubt, stage. fire guns stage proceedings, efficacy. seldom investigation pursue depth 663, Virgin Islands Aquino, 378 549 (C.A.3d 1967). Beyond problems, difficulty: occurred? Is mere sufficient? Perhaps states 'respondent statement' 165. Does advantage subsequently untested evidence? unexercised required, Clause? significant, explored elemental testimony—the offense?

Category: 0