To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Ohio v. Roberts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ohio v. Roberts
Seal of the United States Supreme Court
Argued November 26, 1979
Decided June 25, 1980
Full case nameOhio v. Hershel Roberts
Citations448 U.S. 56 (more)
100 S. Ct. 2531; 65 L. Ed. 2d 597; 1980 U.S. LEXIS 140
Holding
The introduction in evidence at respondent's trial of the daughter's preliminary hearing testimony was constitutionally permissible.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
MajorityBlackmun, joined by Burger, Stewart, White, Powell, Rehnquist
DissentBrennan, joined by Marshall, Stevens
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV
Overruled by
Crawford v. Washington (2004)

Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court decision dealing with the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Factual background

Herschel Roberts was charged with forgery of a check and with possession of stolen credit cards. At the preliminary hearing, defense counsel called the victims' daughter to the stand and tried to elicit from her an admission that she provided the defendant with the checks and the credit card but failed to inform the defendant that she did not have permission to use them. Counsel was unable to elicit this admission nor did the prosecutor cross-examine the witness.

The daughter was subpoenaed five times but never appeared for trial. At trial, the defendant testified that the daughter had given him her parents' checkbook and credit cards with the understanding he could use them. The State, on rebuttal, offered the transcript of the daughter's testimony pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Section 2945.49 (1975) which permits the use of preliminary examination testimony of a witness who “cannot for any reason be produced at trial.” The defense objected asserting that use of the transcript violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution (incorporated to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution). The trial court admitted the transcript and the defendant was convicted. The Supreme Court of Ohio overturned the conviction. That court held that the daughter's absence at trial and the lack of cross-examination at the preliminary hearing violated the Confrontation Clause.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court held that the daughter's statement did not violate the Confrontation Clause. They reasoned that out-of-court statements can be admissible if they bear an adequate “indicia of reliability,” even if the declarant is not available to testify in court. They found that one could infer reliability in cases where the evidences falls “within a firmly rooted hearsay exception,” but even in other cases, if “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness” can be shown, the evidence would be admitted.

Subsequent history

Ohio v. Roberts is no longer controlling authority. The Supreme Court later ruled, in Crawford v. Washington, that because the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution specifies the right to confrontation, an “indicia of reliability” was not an adequate substitute for cross-examination. But the Court's recent decision in Michigan v. Bryant may signal a "resurrection" of Roberts, as the Court based its decision on reliability of the out-of-court statement, rather than on the Defendant's opportunity to confront the witness bearing testimony against him.[1]

See also

References

  1. ^ [1]

Further reading

  • Bulkley, Josephine (2006). "Legal proceedings, reforms, and emerging issues in child sexual abuse cases". Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 6 (2): 153–180. doi:10.1002/bsl.2370060203.

External links

This page was last edited on 7 May 2019, at 05:54
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.