10 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Dickensgreen2 sentences2011State v. Dickens, 187 Ariz. 1, 14 , 926 P.2d 468, 481 (1996); see also United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 241 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) ("The Sixth Amendment does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversarial system...."). 2011State v. Dickens, 187 Ariz. 1, 14 , 926 P.2d 468, 481 (1996); see also United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 241 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) ("The Sixth Amendment does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversarial system...."). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Noblesgreen2 sentences2011State v. Dickens, 187 Ariz. 1, 14 , 926 P.2d 468, 481 (1996); see also United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 241 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) ("The Sixth Amendment does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversarial system...."). 2011State v. Dickens, 187 Ariz. 1, 14 , 926 P.2d 468, 481 (1996); see also United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 241 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) ("The Sixth Amendment does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversarial system...."). | 2 | 2 |
Washington v. Texasgreen2 sentences1982In so holding the Supreme Court recognized that the right to compel the attendances of witnesses and offer their testimony was “in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies.” 388 U.S. at 19 , 87 S.Ct. at 1923 . 1982In so holding the Supreme Court recognized that the right to compel the attendances of witnesses and offer their testimony was “in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies.” 388 U.S. at 19 , 87 S.Ct. at 1923 . | 1 | 3 |
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlsongreen1 sentence2022The constitution does not, however, guarantee a defendant the right to present a defense “in whatever manner and with whatever evidence [the defendant] chooses.” State v. Carlson, 237 Ariz. 381, 393, ¶ 36 (2015) (internal quotation and citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2002Romley v. Superior Court (Roper), 172 Ariz. 232, 236 , 836 P.2d 445, 449 (App.1992), that right does not extend to presenting irrelevant evidence. 2002Romley v. Superior Court (Roper), 172 Ariz. 232, 236 , 836 P.2d 445, 449 (App.1992), that right does not extend to presenting irrelevant evidence. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fulminantegreen2 sentences2001For these same reasons, the Majors confession did not meet the "inherent tendency" requirement of State v. Fulminante, 161 Ariz. 237, 252 , 778 P.2d 602, 617 (1988). ¶ 19 Relying on Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 298 , 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1047 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973), Harrod argues that the exclusion of the Majors confession denied him the right to present a defense. 2001For these same reasons, the Majors confession did not meet the "inherent tendency" requirement of State v. Fulminante, 161 Ariz. 237, 252 , 778 P.2d 602, 617 (1988). ¶ 19 Relying on Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 298 , 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1047 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973), Harrod argues that the exclusion of the Majors confession denied him the right to present a defense. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chambers v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences2001For these same reasons, the Majors confession did not meet the "inherent tendency" requirement of State v. Fulminante, 161 Ariz. 237, 252 , 778 P.2d 602, 617 (1988). ¶ 19 Relying on Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 298 , 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1047 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973), Harrod argues that the exclusion of the Majors confession denied him the right to present a defense. 2001For these same reasons, the Majors confession did not meet the "inherent tendency" requirement of State v. Fulminante, 161 Ariz. 237, 252 , 778 P.2d 602, 617 (1988). ¶ 19 Relying on Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 298 , 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1047 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973), Harrod argues that the exclusion of the Majors confession denied him the right to present a defense. | 3 | 1978–2001 |
State v. LaGrand
green
2 sentences2001But in LaGrand we noted that the Court in Chambers was strongly persuaded by the demonstrated reliability of the proffered statements. 153 Ariz. at 29 , 734 P.2d at 571 . 2001But in LaGrand we noted that the Court in Chambers was strongly persuaded by the demonstrated reliability of the proffered statements. 153 Ariz. at 29 , 734 P.2d at 571 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.