William J. Brennan, Jr.

Name: California v. Green — Dissent
Author: William J. Brennan, Jr.

Summary

“California v. Green — Dissent”, is a work by William J. Brennan, Jr.. It explores elements such as factfinder, preliminary hearing and witness.

Quotes from California v. Green — Dissent (William J. Brennan, Jr.)

William J. Brennan, Jr., California v. Green — Dissent

“ In the hurried, somewhat pro forma context of the average preliminary hearing, a witness may be more careless in his testimony than in the more measured and searching atmosphere of a trial. Similarly, a man willing to perjure himself when the consequences are simply that the accused will stand trial may be less willing to do so when his lies may condemn the defendant to loss of liberty. In short, it ignores reality to assume that the purposes of the Confrontation Clause are met during a preliminary hearing. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr., California v. Green — Dissent

“ Honest inability to remember at trial raises serious question about clarity of memory at the time of the pretrial statement. The deceit inherent in feigned loss of memory lessens confidence in the probity of prior assertions. And fear of self-incrimination at trial suggests that the witness may have shaped prior testimony so as to avoid dangerous consequences for himself. Reliability cannot be assumed simply because a prior statement was made at a preliminary hearing. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr., California v. Green — Dissent

“ It includes both the opportunity to cross-examine and the occasion for the jury to weigh the demeanor of the witness. A preliminary hearing is ordinarily a much less searching exploration into the merits of a case than a trial, simply because its function is the more limited one of determining whether probable cause exists to hold the accused for trial.' Id., at 725, 88 S.Ct., at 1322. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr., California v. Green — Dissent

“ There is no way to test the recollection and sift the conscience of a witness regarding the facts of an alleged offense if he is unwilling or unable to be questioned about them; [5] defense counsel cannot probe the story of a silent witness and attempt to expose facts that qualify or discredit it. The impetus to truth inherent in the oath sworn by the witness, in the penalty for perjury, and in the serious purpose of the courtroom have no effect on him so far as the facts of the alleged offense are concerned. Nor, obviously, can the factfinder view his demeanor while he recounts the facts. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr., California v. Green — Dissent

“ Conscientious defense counsel, aware that today's decision has increased the likelihood of the use of preliminary hearing testimony at trial, may well wish to conduct a full-scale, unlimited cross-examination of prosecution witnesses at the hearing. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr., California v. Green — Dissent

“ But in neither instance are the purposes of the Confrontation Clause satisfied, because the witness cannot be questioned at trial concerning the pertinent facts. In both cases, if a pretrial statement is introduced for the truth of the facts asserted, the witness becomes simply a conduit for the admission of stale evidence, whose reliability can never be tested before the trial factfinder by cross-examination of the declarant about the operative events, and by observation of his demeanor as he testifies about them. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr., California v. Green — Dissent

“ Is the mere opportunity for face-to-face encounter sufficient? Perhaps so. The Court states that 'respondent had every opportunity to cross-examine Porter as to his statement' at the hearing. Ante, at 165. Does that mean that if defense counsel fails to take advantage of the opportunity that the accused can subsequently be convicted at trial on the basis of wholly untested evidence? If more than an unexercised chance to cross-examine is required, how thorough and effective must the questioning be before it satisfies the Confrontation Clause? ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William J. Brennan, Jr., California v. Green — Dissent

“ In time this result would prostitute the accepted purpose of preliminary hearings and might place an intolerable burden on the time and resources of the courts of first instance.' 70 Cal.2d, at 664, 75 Cal.Rptr., at 788, 451 P.2d, at 428. ”

William J. Brennan, Jr.

Summary

Quotes from California v. Green — Dissent (William J. Brennan, Jr.)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature