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.
9 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 2,314 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Delaware v. Van Arsdall.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Delaware v. Van Arsdall Anchor | green | “trial 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, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogation that is rep…” | 626 |
| 2 | Delaware v. Fensterer | green | “the 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.” | 512 |
| 3 | Davis v. Alaska | green | “the exposure of a witness' motivation in testifying is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination.” | 275 |
| 4 | Delaware v. Van Arsdall | green | “the importance of the witness' testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and,…” | 264 |
| 5 | Davis v. Alaska | green | “cross-examination is the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony are tested.” | 243 |
| 6 | California v. Green | green | “greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.” | 175 |
| 7 | Davis v. Alaska | green | “the main and essential purpose of confrontation is to secure for the opponent the opportunity of cross-examination.” | 142 |
| 8 | Crane v. Kentucky | green | “the constitution leaves to the judges who must make these decisions 'wide latitude' to exclude evidence that is 'repetitive ..., only marginally relevant' or poses an undue risk of 'harassment, prejudice, or confusion of the issues.” | 43 |
| 9 | Michigan v. Lucas | green | “represents a valid legislative determination that rape victims deserve heightened protection against surprise, harassment, and unnecessary invasions of privacy.” | 34 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.