right to make defense (Kansas) · Go Syfert
← Kansas issues

right to make defense in Kansas

5 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1878–2021 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
United States v. Scheffergreen
scotus · 1998 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
1 sentence

2021See 523 U.S. at 307-08 (determining that per se ban on polygraph evidence does not violate Fifth or Sixth Amendment right to present a defense).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Faretta v. California green
scotus · 1975
2 sentences

2010It is the accused, not counsel, who must be ‘informed of the nature and cause of the accusation,’ who must be ‘confronted with the witnesses against him,’ and who must be accorded ‘compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.’ ” 422 U.S. at 819-20 .

2000It is the accused, not counsel, who must be ‘informed of the nature and cause of tlie accusation,’ who must be ‘confronted with witnesses against him,’ and who must be accorded ‘compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.’ ” 422 U.S. at 819 .

22000–2010
Carpenter v. State green
kan · 1978
1 sentence

1984Thus, we hold that sentencing here is not a postjudgment proceeding as contemplated by the last sentence of K.S.A. 20-311f(a), and defendant is held to the standard set forth in Carpenter v. State, 223 Kan. at 525 ; that is, the affidavit of prejudice must be filed within a reasonable time after the litigant becomes aware of the facts giving rise to the challenge or the right to make the challenge is waived.

11984–1984
Prouty v. Stover green
· 1873
1 sentence

1878It is insisted, upon the authority of Prouty v. Stover, 11 Kas. 235 , that this court has expressed the right to make inquiry into the fact whether the district from which a member of the legislature is admitted, exists or not, and if it does not exist, the member may be ousted by the courts.

11878–1878

Where else courts name it

CA 45 (1956–2024) NY 25 (1882–2018) TX 23 (1883–2025) IN 20 (1947–2015) IA 18 (1892–2025) OR 16 (1887–2023) IL 12 (1907–2024) MI 12 (1895–2026) OH 12 (1949–2026) VA 11 (1874–2023) AL 11 (1887–2017) GA 11 (1913–2019) WA 10 (1927–2025) LA 10 (1953–2025) WI 10 (1960–2025) NJ 9 (1957–2004) KY 9 (1863–2014) NM 8 (1939–2013) MO 8 (1902–2016) FL 8 (1931–2025) MD 8 (1919–2025) DC 7 (1973–2022) PA 7 (1898–2018) MN 7 (1995–2004) AZ 7 (1928–2021) NC 6 (1972–2017) RI 5 (1980–2021) KS 5 (1878–2021) MS 5 (1981–2001) AR 5 (1944–2014) CT 5 (1946–2017) CO 5 (1890–2020) OK 5 (1911–2007) HI 4 (1899–1996) VT 4 (1891–2026) UT 3 (1990–2017) MA 3 (2008–2022) AK 3 (1984–1996) TN 3 (1988–2024) DE 3 (2009–2012) ID 3 (1986–2015) ME 3 (1978–2004) WY 2 (1978–1992) SC 2 (1924–2014) WV 2 (1903–1941) ND 2 (1910–1986)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check