Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
19 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2025 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Idaho 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Washington v. Texasgreen2 sentences2025The right to present a defense includes the right to offer testimony of witnesses, compel their attendance, and to present the defendant’s version of the facts “to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies.” Id. 2025“The right to present a defense is protected by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and made applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” State v. Meister, 148 Idaho 236, 239 , 220 P.3d 1055, 1058 (2009) (citing Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 (1967)). | 14 | 17 |
State v. Meistergreen2 sentences2025“The right to present a defense is protected by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and made applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” State v. Meister, 148 Idaho 236, 239 , 220 P.3d 1055, 1058 (2009) (citing Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 (1967)). 2025“The right to present a defense is protected by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and made applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” State v. Meister, 148 Idaho 236, 239 , 220 P.3d 1055, 1058 (2009) (citing Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 (1967)). | 7 | 8 |
State v. Albertgreen2 sentences2023However, this right must be balanced against any interest the state has in the criminal trial process; “the Sixth Amendment ‘does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversarial system.’” State v. Meister, 148 Idaho 236, 239-40 , 220 P.3d 1055, 1058-59 (2009); State v. Albert, 138 Idaho 284, 287 , 62 P.3d 208, 211 (Ct. App. 2002) (quoting Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 412-13 (1988)). 2023However, this right must be balanced against any interest the state has in the criminal trial process; “the Sixth Amendment ‘does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversarial system.’” State v. Meister, 148 Idaho 236, 239-40 , 220 P.3d 1055, 1058-59 (2009); State v. Albert, 138 Idaho 284, 287 , 62 P.3d 208, 211 (Ct. App. 2002) (quoting Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 412-13 (1988)). | 4 | 4 |
Taylor v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences2023However, this right must be balanced against any interest the state has in the criminal trial process; “the Sixth Amendment ‘does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversarial system.’” State v. Meister, 148 Idaho 236, 239-40 , 220 P.3d 1055, 1058-59 (2009); State v. Albert, 138 Idaho 284, 287 , 62 P.3d 208, 211 (Ct. App. 2002) (quoting Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 412-13 (1988)). 2022All the same, this right must be balanced against any interest the State has in the criminal trial process; “the Sixth Amendment ‘does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversarial system.’” State v. Albert, 138 Idaho 284, 287 , 62 P.3d 208, 211 (Ct. App. 2002) (quoting Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 , 412-13 (1988)). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Dalrymplegreen2 sentences2014Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 (1967); State v. Dalrymple, 144 Idaho 628, 634-35 , 167 P.3d 765, 771-72 (2007). 2014Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 (1967); State v. Dalrymple, 144 Idaho 628, 634-35 , 167 P.3d 765, 771-72 (2007). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Ogdengreen2 sentences2024State v. Ogden, 171 Idaho 258, 272 , 519 P.3d 1198, 1212 (2022); see also Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 (1967). 2024State v. Ogden, 171 Idaho 258, 272 , 519 P.3d 1198, 1212 (2022); see also Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 (1967). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kentsler Lee Jonesgreen2 sentences2024Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986); State v. Jones, 160 Idaho 449, 452 , 375 P.3d 279, 282 (2016). 2024Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986); State v. Jones, 160 Idaho 449, 452 , 375 P.3d 279, 282 (2016). | 1 | 1 |
Crane v. Kentuckygreen1 sentence2024Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986); State v. Jones, 160 Idaho 449, 452 , 375 P.3d 279, 282 (2016). | 1 | 1 |
Schoger v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Lynch v. Overholser, 369 U.S. 705, 719 (1962) (declining to hold that there is an absolute right to have a guilty plea accepted); Schoger, 148 Idaho at 629 , 226 P.3d at 1276 (holding there is no constitutional or statutory right to plead guilty); State v. Meister, 148 Idaho 236, 239 , 220 P.3d 1055, 1058 (2009) (stating that the right to present a defense is protected by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution). 2019See Lynch v. Overholser, 369 U.S. 705, 719 (1962) (declining to hold that there is an absolute right to have a guilty plea accepted); Schoger, 148 Idaho at 629 , 226 P.3d at 1276 (holding there is no constitutional or statutory right to plead guilty); State v. Meister, 148 Idaho 236, 239 , 220 P.3d 1055, 1058 (2009) (stating that the right to present a defense is protected by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution). | 1 | 1 |
Lynch v. Overholsergreen2 sentences2019See Lynch v. Overholser, 369 U.S. 705, 719 (1962) (declining to hold that there is an absolute right to have a guilty plea accepted); Schoger, 148 Idaho at 629 , 226 P.3d at 1276 (holding there is no constitutional or statutory right to plead guilty); State v. Meister, 148 Idaho 236, 239 , 220 P.3d 1055, 1058 (2009) (stating that the right to present a defense is protected by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution). 2019See Lynch v. Overholser, 369 U.S. 705, 719 (1962) (declining to hold that there is an absolute right to have a guilty plea accepted); Schoger, 148 Idaho at 629 , 226 P.3d at 1276 (holding there is no constitutional or statutory right to plead guilty); State v. Meister, 148 Idaho 236, 239 , 220 P.3d 1055, 1058 (2009) (stating that the right to present a defense is protected by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.