Does exclusion of evidence at trial violate a defendant's constitutional right to confront and cross-examine witnesses?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Hardy, C084623 (Cal. App. 2020):
Exclusion of the evidence did not violate defendant's constitutional rights. A trial court's application of the ordinary rules of evidence does not impermissibly infringe on a defendant's constitutional rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses or to present a defense. (People v. Blacksher (2011) 52 Cal.4th 769, 821.) Such is the case here.
Page 11
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Is there any case law supporting a defendant's contention that the trial court violated his constitutional right to confront witnesses in the witness box? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for a defendant's claim that the exclusion of evidence in the trial of a defendant in a sexual assault case violated his federal constitutional right to present a defense? (California, United States of America)
Is a defendant's claim that the trial court's failure to provide him with the means and subpoena witnesses to defend at trial a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself at trial reversible? (California, United States of America)
Can a defendant confront prosecution witnesses at trial without violating his right of confrontation? (California, United States of America)
Does a limitation on cross-examining a prosecution witness at trial violate a defendant's right to confront the witness? (California, United States of America)
If defendant has no right to present the evidence at trial, has he not established a violation of his right to a fair trial? (California, United States of America)
Does admitting evidence pursuant to California Evidence Code section 1237 impermissibly deny defendants their constitutional rights to confrontation and cross-examination? (California, United States of America)
What are the implications of a court's finding that a defendant's right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him at trial was violated? (California, United States of America)
Does admitting into evidence of volunteered statements by a defendant prior to his having been advised of his rights under the Federal Constitution violate such rights? (California, United States of America)
Is a defendant's reliance on evidence code section 730 of the Evidence Code Section 730 a violation of his constitutional right to access a mental health expert? (California, United States of America)
