Kevin D. Gray v. Maryland

The court held that when an expert conveys an absent analyst's statements in support of the expert's opinion, and the statements provide that support only if true, then the statements come into evidence for their truth.

The Court narrowed the standard set in Crawford v. Washington for determining whether hearsay statements in criminal cases are permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.

It was ruled that having an expert witness testify on behalf of a third-party lab analyst does not violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause as long as the results were not directed to prove guilt.

The Court considered whether the Confrontation Clause allows a supervisor to testify about lab results transcribed by a non-testifying analyst, and held that a surrogate analyst could not testify about the certifying analyst's testimonial forensic report.· AI-written

The Court held that it was a violation of the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation for a prosecutor to submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the person who performed the test.

The Court held that for testimonial statements to be admissible under the forfeiture exception to hearsay, the defendant must have intended to make the witness unavailable for trial.

Reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay statements in criminal cases is permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.

The Supreme Court issued a ruling with regard to the highly controversial matter of polygraph, or "lie-detector," testing.

The Court held that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, which provides criminal defendants with the right to confront witnesses against them, did not bar the use of one-way closed-circuit television to present testimony by an alleged child sex abuse victim.

The Court held that the placement of a screen between a defendant and the witnesses testifying against him, making it impossible for the witnesses to see him during their testimony, violated the Confrontation Clause.

The Court held that defense witnesses can be prevented from testifying under certain circumstances, even if that hurts the defense's case.

The Court held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to testify on their own behalf.

The Court held that the respondent's rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment were not violated by his exclusion from the competency hearing.

The Court held, 5–4, that the Confrontation Clause of the Constitution's Sixth Amendment barred the admission, in a joint trial, of a non-testifying codefendant's confession incriminating the defendant, even if the defendant's own confession was admitted against him.

The Court determined the constitutionality of deporting aliens who might give testimony in criminal alien smuggling prosecutions.

The Court held that a state may not enforce its rules of evidence, such as rules excluding hearsay, in a fashion that disallows a criminal defendant from presenting reliable exculpatory evidence and thus denies the defendant a fair trial.

The Court held that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause did not bar admitting a witness's prior inconsistent statements when the witness testified at trial and faced full cross-examination, or prior preliminary hearing testimony given with adequate opportunity for cross-examination.· AI-written

The Court ruled, in a case about removing an unruly criminal defendant during trial, that a judge may remove a stubbornly defiant defendant from the courtroom after warning that continued disruption will lead to removal.· AI-written

The Court held that a defendant was deprived of his rights under the Confrontation Clause if a confession by his codefendant was introduced in their joint trial, regardless of whether the jury received instructions only to consider it against the confessor.

The Court decided that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution (guaranteeing the right of a criminal defendant to force the attendance of witnesses for their side) is applicable in state courts as well as federal courts.