Court bolsters defendant's right to cross-examine witnesses
Source: AP
WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court on Thursday buttressed a criminal defendant's right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, ruling in favor of a New York man who was convicted of killing a 2-year-old boy on Easter Sunday in 2006.
By an 8-1 vote, the justices held that defendant Darrell Hemphill's constitutional rights were violated when a judge allowed jurors to read another man's testimony that prosecutors used to undermine Hemphill's defense. The man, Nicholas Morris, was unavailable at the trial.
Hemphill argued that Morris fired the 9-millimeter handgun whose stray bullet killed the child in the Bronx. Morris had initially been charged with the killing and illegal possession of a 9-millimeter gun. Police searching Morris apartment found a 9-millimeter cartridge and .357-caliber bullets on his nightstand.
The trial judge allowed jurors to see a statement Morris made when pleading guilty to the lesser charge of criminal possession of a .357 revolver. The plea deal made no mention of the 9-millimeter weapon.
Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/court-bolsters-defendants-right-to-cross-examine-witnesses/ar-AASYH7R
marie999
(3,334 posts)iluvtennis
(19,844 posts)with prosecutors, defense attorneys, defendant, and judge. Play the videotaped testimony to the jury.during the trial. Im an avid trial watcher and have seen this done many times.
mwooldri
(10,302 posts)The line dissenter in another 8-1 case.
Alexander Of Assyria
(7,839 posts)Dissenter in trying to hide WH records hmmm.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)If there is an extreme right wing position to be had, he's on it.
Picaro
(1,517 posts)Thomas again dissents. He's the Mikey of the SC. He hates everything.
jgmiller
(391 posts)He basically dissents on everything because according to this theory if it's not actually written in the constitution you can't agree to it.
LT Barclay
(2,596 posts)Constitution was meant to be viewed that way, it wouldn't have a provision for amendment, and it wouldn't clearly state that just because a right is not listed doesn't mean it doesn't exist (poor paraphrase).