Montoya v. California
| Decision Date | 15 October 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-6419,72-6419 |
| Citation | 414 U.S. 931,38 L.Ed.2d 162,94 S.Ct. 235 |
| Parties | David Ernest MONTOYA v. State of CALIFORNIA |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Petitioner, convicted of arson, bribery and conspiracy, argues that the introduction of incriminating extra-
judicial statements of a codefendant when the codefendant was unavailable to testify because of his claim of Fifth Amendment privilege constituted a violation of petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. As in Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, 91 S.Ct. 210, 27 L.Ed.2d 213, where this Court rejected a similar claim, I feel that the Sixth Amendment prohibits the State from putting damaging statements before the jury when the defendant has no opportunity to test those statements for truthfulness and meaning through cross-examination of the declarent. See Dutton v. Evans, supra, at 104, 91 S.Ct. 210 (Marshall, J., dissenting).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hartman v. Switzer, Civ. A. No. 73-788.
... ... 607, 71 L.Ed. 1037 (1927). There is no constitutional right to refuse to file an income tax return because of the Fifth Amendment. See California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424, 91 S.Ct. 1535, 29 L.Ed.2d 9 (1971); California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, Secretary of the Treasury, ___ U.S. ___, 94 S.Ct ... ...
-
Hartmann v. Scott
... ... 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961); McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 668, 83 S.Ct. 1433, 10 L.Ed.2d 622 (1963); Damico v. California, 389 U.S. 416, 88 S.Ct. 526, 19 L.Ed.2d 647 (1967); Houghton v. Shafer, 392 U.S. 639, 88 S.Ct. 2119, 20 L.Ed.2d 1319 (1968). To some extent, the two ... ...
- Herbst v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp.
- Kohn v. Royall, Koegel & Wells