MONTOYA v. CALIFORNIA, 414 U.S. 931 (1973)

U.S. Supreme Court

MONTOYA v. CALIFORNIA , 414 U.S. 931 (1973)

414 U.S. 931

David Ernest MONTOYA
v.
State of CALIFORNIA.
No. 72-6419.

Supreme Court of the United States

October 15, 1973

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting.

Petitioner, convicted of arson, bribery and conspiracy, argues that the introduction of incriminating extra-

judicial statements of a codefendant when the codefendant was unavailable to testify because of his claim of Fifth Amendment privilege constituted a violation of petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. As in Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, where this Court rejected a similar claim, I feel that the Sixth Amendment prohibits the State from putting damaging statements before the jury when the defendant has no opportunity to test those statements for truthfulness and meaning through cross-examination of the declarent. See Dutton v. Evans, supra, at 104 (Marshall, J., dissenting).[ Montoya v. California 414 U.S. 931 (1973) ]


U.S. Supreme Court

MONTOYA v. CALIFORNIA , 414 U.S. 931 (1973)

414 U.S. 931

David Ernest MONTOYA
v.
State of CALIFORNIA.
No. 72-6419.

Supreme Court of the United States

October 15, 1973

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting.

Petitioner, convicted of arson, bribery and conspiracy, argues that the introduction of incriminating extra-

judicial statements of a codefendant when the codefendant was unavailable to testify because of his claim of Fifth Amendment privilege constituted a violation of petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. As in Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, where this Court rejected a similar claim, I feel that the Sixth Amendment prohibits the State from putting damaging statements before the jury when the defendant has no opportunity to test those statements for truthfulness and meaning through cross-examination of the declarent. See Dutton v. Evans, supra, at 104 (Marshall, J., dissenting).[ Montoya v. California 414 U.S. 931 (1973) ]

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.