Cases pin-citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Go Syfert
Search » Famous passages » Cases pin-citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall

Cases pin-citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall

Delaware v. Van Arsdall  ·  1986  ·  242 pinpoint citations from 89 cases, 62 distinct passages.

Jewell v. State  ·  2025-03-31  ·  Supreme Court of Delaware  ·  pin 475 U.S. at 673
“Van Arsdall I”
State v. Carter  ·  2024-04-04  ·  Ohio Supreme Court  ·  pin 89 L. Ed. 2d at 674
“While we agree that the trial court’s ruling was contrary to the mandate of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, we conclude that the Supreme Court of Delaware was wrong when it declined to consider whether that ruling was harmless in the context of the trial as a whole”
United States v. Dr. James Heaton  ·  2023-02-14  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  pin 475 U.S. at 673
“[A]n otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently say, on the whole record, that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Monya Davis a/k/a Yayo v. State of Mississippi  ·  2022-11-29  ·  Court of Appeals of Mississippi  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 673
“[T]he Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.”
United States v. Lance Cannon  ·  2021-02-03  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  pin 475 U.S. at 673
“[A]n otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently say, on the whole record, that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Rodney Bullock v. Commonwealth of Kentucky  ·  2020-12-03  ·  Court of Appeals of Kentucky  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 673
“[t]rial courts retain broad discretion to regulate cross-examination”
State v. Colston  ·  2020-07-27  ·  Ohio Court of Appeals  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 673
“[A]n otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently say, on the whole record, that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”
United States v. Arthur Rathburn  ·  2019-05-08  ·  Sixth Circuit  ·  pin 475 U.S. at 673
“[The Confrontation Clause does not guarantee cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.”
United States v. Cook  ·  2019-01-25  ·  Tenth Circuit  ·  pin 475 U.S. at 673
“[T]rial judges retain wide latitude insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits on such cross- examination based on concerns about, among other things, . . . confusion of the issues.”
State v. Kyle Lee Monahan  ·  2018-06-28  ·  Wisconsin Supreme Court  ·  pin 89 L. Ed. 2d at 674
"[ Van Arsdell ] recognize[ed] that, 'of course,' an important factor to consider is 'the overall strength of the prosecution's case.' "
Roger Lee Jackson v. State of Mississippi  ·  2018-06-14  ·  Mississippi Supreme Court  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 673
"[T]he Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish."
State v. Starkey  ·  2017-12-29  ·  Ohio Court of Appeals  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 673
“[a] criminal defendant’s right to confront and cross-examine a witness is not unlimited”
Dedric D'Shawn Jones v. State  ·  2017-08-01  ·  Court of Appeals of Texas  ·  pin 475 U.S. at 673
“Exposing a witness’ motivation to testify for or against the accused or the State is a proper and important purpose of cross-examination.”
United States v. Hausa  ·  2017-01-12  ·  E.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 673
“The right to cross-examine is not absolute ....”
United States v. Terrell Stevenson  ·  2016-08-09  ·  Third Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 673
“An otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently say, on the whole record, that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
United States v. Charles Davis  ·  2016-07-13  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  pin 89 L. Ed. 2d at 674
“[Tjrial judges retain wide latitude insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits ... based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, ... or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.”
State v. Dorsey  ·  2015-11-09  ·  Ohio Court of Appeals  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 673
“[A]n otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently say, on Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00217 22 the whole record, that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”
Mark Jensen v. Marc Clements  ·  2015-09-08  ·  Seventh Circuit  ·  pin 89 L. Ed. 2d at 674
“Whether such an error is harmless in a particular case depends upon a host of factors.... These factors include ... whether the testimony was cumulative, [and] the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points.... ”
United States v. Pizarro  ·  2014-11-14  ·  First Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 673
“[A]n otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently say, on the whole record, that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
United States v. Eddy Bullcalf  ·  2014-03-14  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 673
“The correct inquiry is whether, assuming that the damaging potential of the cross-examination were fully realized, a reviewing court might nonetheless say that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
United States v. Hayat  ·  2013-03-13  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 673
“[T]rial judges retain wide latitude insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits on ... cross-examination based on concerns about, among other things ... interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.”
United States v. Chadrick Fulks  ·  2012-06-26  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 673
“[T]he Constitution entitles a criminal defendant to a fair trial, not a perfect one.”
United States v. Eric Dixon  ·  2012-06-05  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 673
“Confrontation Clause errors [are] subject to ... harmless-error analysis.”
Blades v. United States  ·  2011-07-14  ·  District of Columbia Court of Appeals  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 674
“By thus cutting off all questioning about an event ... [from which] a jury might reasonably have found furnished the witness a motive for favoring the prosecution in his testimony, the court’s ruling violated respondent’s rights secured by the Confrontation Clause.”
United States v. Borda  ·  2011-04-27  ·  District of Columbia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 673
“[A]n otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently say, on the whole record, that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
United States v. Clarke  ·  2011-03-02  ·  District of Columbia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 673
“notwithstanding the Confrontation Clause violation, we cannot reverse a conviction or order a new sentencing hearing if the error is harmless”
Phipps v. People  ·  2011-02-14  ·  Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 674
“the constitutionally improper denial of a defendant’s opportunity to impeach a witness for bias, like other Confrontation Clause errors, is subject to Chapman [v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 (1967)] harmless-error analysis.”
United States v. Ware  ·  2010-11-04  ·  Second Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 673
“[T]rial judges retain wide latitude ... to impose reasonable limits on such cross-examination based on concerns about ... confusion of the issues ... or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.”
United States v. Dunn  ·  2010-10-18  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  pin 89 L. Ed. 2d at 674
“[T]rial judges retain wide latitude ... to impose reasonable limits on ... cross-examination based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness’[s] safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.”
McMillon v. State  ·  2009-08-12  ·  Court of Appeals of Texas  ·  pin 89 L. Ed. 2d at 674
“[TJrial judges retain wide latitude” under the Confrontation Clause to impose restrictions on cross-examination based on such criteria as “harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness’ safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.”
United States v. Collier  ·  2009-05-18  ·  Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 673
“[A] criminal defendant states a violation of the Confrontation Clause by showing that he was prohibited from engaging in otherwise appropriate cross-examination designed to show a prototypical form of bias on the part of the witness-”
Hammer v. State  ·  2009-04-08  ·  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 674
“[T]rial judges retain wide latitude” under the Confrontation Clause to impose restrictions on cross-examination based on such criteria as "harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant”
Ruiz v. State  ·  2008-12-18  ·  Court of Appeals of Texas  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 673
“harmless-error doctrine recognizes the principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence”
Brinson v. Walker  ·  2008-11-13  ·  Second Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 673
“ ‘[T]he exposure of a witness’ motivation in testifying is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination.’ ”
United States v. Fell  ·  2008-06-27  ·  Second Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 673
“[T]he Constitution entitles a criminal defendant to a fair trial, not a perfect one.”
State v. Willis  ·  2008-04-16  ·  Court of Appeals of Oregon  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 673
“Accordingly, we hold that the constitutionally improper denial of a defendant’s opportunity to impeach a witness for bias, like other Confrontation Clause errors, is subject to Chapman harmless-error analysis.”
United States v. Michael A. Rosin  ·  2008-01-16  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  pin 89 L. Ed. 2d at 674
“[T]he Constitution entitles a criminal defendant to a fair trial, not a perfect one.”
United States v. Manuel Williams  ·  2007-10-03  ·  Eighth Circuit  ·  pin 89 L. Ed. 2d at 674
“[T]rial judges retain wide latitude ... to impose reasonable limits on such cross-examination based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness’ safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.”
State v. Watt  ·  2007-06-14  ·  Washington Supreme Court  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 673
“The constitutionally improper denial of a defendant’s opportunity to impeach a witness for bias, like other Confrontation Clause errors, is subject to . . . harmless-error analysis.”
State v. Watt  ·  2007-06-14  ·  Washington Supreme Court  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 673
"[t]he constitutionally improper denial of a defendant's opportunity to impeach a witness for bias, like other Confrontation Clause errors, is subject to . . . harmless-error analysis."
Paul David Smith v. Commonwealth of Kentucky  ·  2007-05-24  ·  Kentucky Supreme Court  ·  pin 106 S. Ct. at 1431
"[W]e have repeatedly reaffirmed the principle that an otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently say, on the whole record, that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt."
United States v. Marquez-Lerma  ·  2006-09-27  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  pin 89 L. Ed. 2d at 674
“[Tjrial judges retain wide latitude insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits on such cross-examination based on concerns about, among other things, ... confusion of the issues, ... or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.”
Perez v. Rosario  ·  2006-05-22  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 673
“The Confrontation Clause [does not guarantee] cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.”
Barboza v. Bissonnette  ·  2006-04-20  ·  D. Massachusetts  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 673
“a criminal defendant states a violation of the Confrontation Clause by showing that he was prohibited from engaging in otherwise appropriate cross-examination designed to show a prototypical form of bias on the part of the witness”
MacK v. Battaglia  ·  2005-08-25  ·  N.D. Illinois  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 673
“[W]e have repeatedly reaffirmed the principle that an otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently say, on the whole record, that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Gomez  ·  2005-05-18  ·  Tennessee Supreme Court  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 673
"[W]e hold that the constitutionally improper denial of a defendant's opportunity to impeach a witness for bias, like other Confrontation Clause errors, is subject to Chapman harmless-error analysis."
State v. Clark  ·  2004-07-06  ·  Court of Appeals of North Carolina  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 S. Ct. at 673
"The correct inquiry is whether, assuming that the damaging potential of the cross-examination were fully realized, a reviewing court might nonetheless say that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt."
United States v. Gonzalez  ·  2004-06-22  ·  Fifth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 673
“[A]n otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if ... the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
United States v. Simmons  ·  2004-06-14  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 S. Ct. at 673
“[A]n otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently say, on the whole record, that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Eloy Simental v. Ronald Matrisciano  ·  2004-05-13  ·  Seventh Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 673
“[Tjrial judges retain wide latitude insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits on such cross-examination .... ”
Page 1 of 5   Next →