390 U.S. 719 (1968)
Defendant sought federal habeas corpus relief, claiming that the use of an ex parte transcript of a codefendant's preliminary hearing testimony in defendant's state trial deprived him of his federal constitutional right to confrontation in violation of U.S. Constitutional Amendment VI and XIV. His contention was rejected by the lower federal courts.
- The United States Supreme Court reversed, holding that the confrontation clause's object was to prevent depositions or ex parte proceedings from being used against prisoners in lieu of a personal examination and cross-examination of the witness in which the accused had an opportunity not only of testing the recollection and sifting the conscience of the witness, but also of compelling him to stand face to face with the jury in order that they could look at him and judge his demeanor upon the stand.
The Court reversed the judgment that upheld the denial of defendant's habeas corpus relief because the use of a codefendant's ex parte testimony at the latter's preliminary hearing constituted a confrontation clause violation, and remanded for further proceedings.
Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Evidence
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.