This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Criminal

Jul. 31, 1999

California 'Lilly'

By Vincent J. O'Neill Jr. The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lilly v. Virginia , 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5782 (June 10, 1999), clamped down on the admissibility against a criminal defendant of accomplice hearsay statements that shift or spread blame. Lilly stands for the proposition that the Confrontation Clause is not necessarily satisfied simply because a state hearsay exception has been met.

        By Vincent J. O'Neill Jr.
        
        The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lilly v. Virginia, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5782 (June 10, 1999), clamped down on the admissibility against a criminal defendant of accomplice hearsay statements that shift or spread blame. Lilly stands for the proposition that the Confrontati...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up