THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 16 - CHAPTER 300
Go to Volume 16 Table of Contents  -  Go to Chapter 300 Table of Contents

300.26 Confrontation Or Cross-Examination

    300.26.1 Constitutional Claims: Denial Of Confrontation Or Cross-Examination As Violation Of 6th Amendment
    300.26.2 Confrontation: Precise Bias Need Not Be Articulated

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 16 - CHAPTER 300

PRACTICE NOTE: A criminal defendant's right to cross-examine witnesses presented against him or her is basic to our system of criminal justice. "[A]n important function of cross-examination is the exposure of a witness' motivation in testifying." (State v. Arline (CT 1992) 612 A2d 755, 759; see also Douglas v. Alabama (1965) 380 US 415, 418 [85 SCt 1074, 1076; 13 LEd2d 934]; Green v. McElroy (1959) 360 US 474, 496 [79 SCt 1400; 3 LEd2d 1377].) In fact, the exposure of a witness' motivation in testifying is so significant that in a criminal case curtailment of this right may amount to a denial of confrontation or due process rights. (See e.g., Davis v. Alaska (1974) 415 US 308, 316-17 [94 SCt 1105, 1110; 39 LEd2d 347].) Therefore, a trial court must permit a defendant to present facts to the jury and allow the jury to draw inferences germane to the assessment of witness reliability. (Davis v. Alaska, 415 US at 316; State v. Lee (CT 1993) 620 A2d 1303, 1311.)

    "The test for a violation [of the 6th Amendment right of confrontation] is whether 'a reasonable jury might have received a significantly different impression of the witness' credibility had defense counsel been permitted to pursue his proposed line of cross-examination.' [Citation.]" (U.S. v. Davis (DC Cir. 1997) 127 F3d 68, 70; see also People v. Quartermain (CA 1997) 16 C4th 600, 623 [66 CR2d 609]; Hollander & Bergman, Everytrial Criminal Defense Resource Book (West, 1999) § 67-1.)

    See also NCJIC 25.16.11 [Prosecution Witness Claim Of 5th Amendment Privilege On Cross Examination].

    See also NCJIC 27.5.2 Witness Credibility: Inability To Cross-Examine Out-Of-Court Declarant's Statements].

    See also NCJIC 300.28 [Severance Of Codefendants].

Christin M. Adams, The Confrontation Clause and Evidentiary Admissions, 28 Pacific L.J. 809 (1997).

Constitutional Admissibility of Hearsay Under the Confrontation Clause: Reliability Requirement for Hearsay Admitted Under A Non"Firmly Rooted" Exception, 14 Campbell L.Rev. 347 (1992).

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [Right Of Confrontation: General Principles].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [9a. Right Of Confrontation: Findings Court Must Make If Defendant Objects To Admission Of Out-Of-Court Statement].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [9b. Right Of Confrontation: Finding Of Nonavailability Of Out-Of-Court Declarant].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [9c. Right Of Confrontation: Proof Of Adequacy Of Indicia Of Reliability].

See also Capital Punishment Handbook [4.1.4 a. Right To Confront And Cross-Examine Witnesses: General Principles And Authorities].

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 16 - CHAPTER 300

    300.26.2    Confrontation: Precise Bias Need Not Be Articulated    

PRACTICE NOTE:  See Boggs v. Collins (6th Cir. 2000) 226 F3d 728, 740 ["[A] defendant is not required to articulate a precise theory of bias at the trial level to merit cross-examination, or to later challenge the limitation of that cross-examination as having been in violation of the Confrontation Clause"].