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...
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!
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?
Sign In