Add to ORKGIn this case, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed respondent William Fensterer\u27s conviction on the grounds that admission of the opinion testimony of the prosecution\u27s expert witness, who was unable to recall the basis for his opinion, denied respondent his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. 493 A. 2d. 959 (1985). We conclude that the Delaware Supreme Court misconstrued the Confrontation Clause as interpreted by the decisions of this Court
My original Conference vote was to affirm, and it was of course on that basis that you assigned the ...
JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL, JUSTICE BLACKMUN, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting ...
At conference I vote to hold this case for Delaware v. Van Arsdall, No. 84-1279. Although I still pr...
In this case, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed respondent William Fensterer\u27s conviction on th...
In this case, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed respondent William Fensterer\u27s conviction on th...
1. SUMMARY: Petr contends that Sup. Ct. Del. erred in reversing resp\u27s conviction on the ground t...
As the Court has granted cert on two Confrontation Clause cases, I think this case should be held. N...
I think your concerns may be satisfied by the following revisions to the circulating draft, which I ...
JUSTICE STEWART, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN and JUSTICE MARSHALL join, dissenting
In his concurring opinion in California v. Green, the Chief Justice emphasized the importance of al...
The United States Supreme Court held in a 6 - 3 decision, that a criminal defendant suffered no conf...
This past term, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the latest in a series of confrontation clause cases ...
JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL, JUSTICE BLACKMUN, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting ...
Dear Sandra: My original inclination was to hold this case for No. 84-1279, Delaware v. Van Arsdall....
The following article is an edited version of the amicus curiae brief filed with the Supreme Court o...
My original Conference vote was to affirm, and it was of course on that basis that you assigned the ...
JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL, JUSTICE BLACKMUN, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting ...
At conference I vote to hold this case for Delaware v. Van Arsdall, No. 84-1279. Although I still pr...
In this case, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed respondent William Fensterer\u27s conviction on th...
In this case, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed respondent William Fensterer\u27s conviction on th...
1. SUMMARY: Petr contends that Sup. Ct. Del. erred in reversing resp\u27s conviction on the ground t...
As the Court has granted cert on two Confrontation Clause cases, I think this case should be held. N...
I think your concerns may be satisfied by the following revisions to the circulating draft, which I ...
JUSTICE STEWART, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN and JUSTICE MARSHALL join, dissenting
In his concurring opinion in California v. Green, the Chief Justice emphasized the importance of al...
The United States Supreme Court held in a 6 - 3 decision, that a criminal defendant suffered no conf...
This past term, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the latest in a series of confrontation clause cases ...
JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL, JUSTICE BLACKMUN, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting ...
Dear Sandra: My original inclination was to hold this case for No. 84-1279, Delaware v. Van Arsdall....
The following article is an edited version of the amicus curiae brief filed with the Supreme Court o...
My original Conference vote was to affirm, and it was of course on that basis that you assigned the ...
JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL, JUSTICE BLACKMUN, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting ...
At conference I vote to hold this case for Delaware v. Van Arsdall, No. 84-1279. Although I still pr...
