It is a little-known fact that statues of turtles rest at the bottom of several lampposts in the Supreme Court building. Architect Cass Gilbert’s design of the building reportedly featured the turtle prominently because it symbolized the slow, deliberate pace of justice to be rendered by the court. For the most part, the analogy has held true.
One area that seems more hare than tortoise, however, has been the court’s interpretation of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. This constitutional protection ensures that, “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” The clause appears clear on its face, but years of jurisprudence muddied the meaning of the term “confrontation.” In 2004, the Supreme Court attempted to restore clarity to the term by holding, in essence, that confrontation requires actual confrontation in court.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
