6 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1987–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by West Virginia 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. Wardgreen2 sentences2020If the explanation offered indicates that the omission of the witness’ identity was willful and motivated by a desire to obtain a tactical advantage that would minimize the effectiveness of cross-examination and the ability to adduce rebuttal evidence, it is consistent with the purposes of the compulsory process clause of the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution and article II[I], § 14 of the West Virginia Constitution to preclude the witness from testifying. 188 W.Va. at 381 , 424 S.E.2d at 726 (footnote added). 2020If the explanation offered indicates that the omission of the witness’ identity was willful and motivated by a desire to obtain a tactical advantage that would minimize the effectiveness of cross-examination and the ability to adduce rebuttal evidence, it is consistent with the purposes of the compulsory process clause of the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution and article II[I], § 14 of the West Virginia Constitution to preclude the witness from testifying. 188 W.Va. at 381 , 424 S.E.2d at 726 (footnote added). | 2 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Washington v. Texas
green
2 sentences2014Compulsory Process The defendant asserts that his Sixth Amendment compulsory process right was violated because the trial court did not allow the jury to observe the physical struggle of endeavoring to have the obstreperous Mr. McGuire enter the courtroom and take the witness stand. 10 I agree with the majority’s observation that a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process for .obtaining witnesses in his or her favor is a “fundamental right.” See Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967). 11 However, I strongly disagree with the majority’s 2014Compulsory Process The defendant asserts that his Sixth Amendment compulsory process right was violated because the trial court did not allow the jury to observe the physical struggle of endeavoring to have the obstreperous Mr. McGuire enter the courtroom and take the witness stand. 10 I agree with the majority’s observation that a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process for .obtaining witnesses in his or her favor is a “fundamental right.” See Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967). 11 However, I strongly disagree with the majority’s | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Rock v. Arkansas
green
2 sentences1988In Rock v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court pointed not only to the federal constitution’s due process provisions as sources of the right to testify, but also to the compulsory process clause of the sixth amendment. 483 U.S. at 52 , 107 S.Ct. at 2709 . 1988In Rock v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court pointed not only to the federal constitution’s due process provisions as sources of the right to testify, but also to the compulsory process clause of the sixth amendment. 483 U.S. at 52 , 107 S.Ct. at 2709 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Wardius v. Oregon
green
2 sentences1987We note, however, that Williams, 399 U.S. at 83 n. 14, 90 S.Ct. at 1897 n. 14, 26 L.Ed.2d at 451 n. 14, and Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470 , 472 n. 4, 93 S.Ct. 2208 , 2211 n. 4, 37 L.Ed.2d 82 , 86 n. 4 (1973), expressly left open the question of whether and to what extent a state may enforce discovery rules against a defendant who fails to comply, by excluding relevant, probative evidence, without offending the compulsory process clause of the sixth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 1987We note, however, that Williams, 399 U.S. at 83 n. 14, 90 S.Ct. at 1897 n. 14, 26 L.Ed.2d at 451 n. 14, and Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470 , 472 n. 4, 93 S.Ct. 2208 , 2211 n. 4, 37 L.Ed.2d 82 , 86 n. 4 (1973), expressly left open the question of whether and to what extent a state may enforce discovery rules against a defendant who fails to comply, by excluding relevant, probative evidence, without offending the compulsory process clause of the sixth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Williams v. Florida
green
2 sentences1987We note, however, that Williams, 399 U.S. at 83 n. 14, 90 S.Ct. at 1897 n. 14, 26 L.Ed.2d at 451 n. 14, and Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470 , 472 n. 4, 93 S.Ct. 2208 , 2211 n. 4, 37 L.Ed.2d 82 , 86 n. 4 (1973), expressly left open the question of whether and to what extent a state may enforce discovery rules against a defendant who fails to comply, by excluding relevant, probative evidence, without offending the compulsory process clause of the sixth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 1987We note, however, that Williams, 399 U.S. at 83 n. 14, 90 S.Ct. at 1897 n. 14, 26 L.Ed.2d at 451 n. 14, and Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470 , 472 n. 4, 93 S.Ct. 2208 , 2211 n. 4, 37 L.Ed.2d 82 , 86 n. 4 (1973), expressly left open the question of whether and to what extent a state may enforce discovery rules against a defendant who fails to comply, by excluding relevant, probative evidence, without offending the compulsory process clause of the sixth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.