-
Home > Opinions > Supreme Court > Constitutional Law – Confrontation Clause
Constitutional Law – Confrontation Clause
Posted: 1:00 am Mon, March 22, 2010
By admin
Tags: Constitutional Law
The admission of grand jury testimony of a potential State witness who expressed reluctance to testify at trial violated the defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights and was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Because the evidence implicating defendant was legally sufficient, a retrial of the defendant does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
| Case Number | A08-0145 |
| Case Name | Minnesota v. Cox |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| County | Hennepin County |
| Category | Constitutional Law |
| Type | Criminal Opinions |
| URL | http://www.finance-commerce.com/userfiles/pdf/OPA080145-0318.htm |
![[Print]](http://minnlawyer.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/print.png)
![[Email]](http://api.addthis.com/oexchange/0.8/forward/email/offer?url=http://minnlawyer.com/2010/03/22/constitutional-law-confrontation-clause/&title=Constitutional Law – Confrontation Clause <span class="dmcss_key_icon"><img alt="(access required)" src="/wp-content/themes/mnlaw/images/goldkey.png" border=0/></span>)
![[RSS Feed]](http://minnlawyer.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/rssfeed.png)
![[Facebook]](http://minnlawyer.com/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/facebook.png)
![[Twitter]](http://twitter.com/home/?status=Constitutional Law – Confrontation Clause <span class="dmcss_key_icon"><img alt="(access required)" src="/wp-content/themes/mnlaw/images/goldkey.png" border=0/></span>+http://minnlawyer.com/2010/03/22/constitutional-law-confrontation-clause/)
POST A COMMENT