An Entity of Type: unit of work, from Named Graph: http://dbpedia.org, within Data Space: dbpedia.org

Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that defense witnesses can be prevented from testifying under certain circumstances, even if that hurts the defense's case. Taylor was the first case to hold that there is no absolute bar to blocking the testimony of a surprise witness, even if that is an essential witness for the defendant, a limitation of the broad right to present a defense recognized in Washington v. Texas (1967).

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that defense witnesses can be prevented from testifying under certain circumstances, even if that hurts the defense's case. Taylor was the first case to hold that there is no absolute bar to blocking the testimony of a surprise witness, even if that is an essential witness for the defendant, a limitation of the broad right to present a defense recognized in Washington v. Texas (1967). Taylor was the first Compulsory Process Clause case since Washington v. Texas to provide a specific limitation on the right of defendants to force their witnesses to testify. In that case, the Court construed a defendant's right very broadly in his ability to present a defense. Here, however, the Court restricted that ability to comply with court rules, especially if those rules were of equal consequence upon both the prosecution and the defense. This decision was reached over the dissent of three Justices, all of whom felt a defendant's case should not be limited based on an error solely by the defendant's attorney to list appropriate witnesses. (en)
  • 泰勒诉伊利诺伊州案(英語:Taylor v. Illinois, U.S. 400 (1988))是美国联邦最高法院裁决的一个1988年的司法案件。在该案中,法院认为在某些特殊情况下,可以拒绝某些被告一方的证人出庭作证,即使这样会对被告不利。最高法院之前曾在1967年的华盛顿诉德克萨斯州案中裁定,美利坚合众国宪法第六条修正案中的强制程序条款(即“被告有权……以强制程序取得对其有利的证人”)不仅适用于联邦法院,同样也适用于各州法院。而到了本案中,法院首次对被告的这一权利作出了限制,指出这样的权利并不是绝对的,在一些特殊情况下,为了“平衡公众利益”,如让审判能得以正常而迅速地进行,可以对被告取得证人的权利作出一定限制。 在泰勒案以前,最高法院对被告提出辩护的权利解释非常宽泛,但从本案开始,法院对这一权利作出了限制,要求被告一方遵守法庭规则,特别是那些对原告和被告有同等效果的规则。法院的这一决定是以5比3的投票结果作出的,大法官約翰·保羅·史蒂文斯起草了法院判决书中的主要意见书,首席大法官威廉·伦奎斯特、大法官桑德拉·戴·奧康納、安東寧·斯卡利亞和拜倫·懷特附议;大法官小威廉·布伦南和哈利·布萊克蒙分别撰写了不同意见,他们和大法官瑟古德·马歇尔认为不应该仅因一位被告的律师没有完全列出其证人名单就对被告的这一权利加以限制。 (zh)
dbo:thumbnail
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 35303006 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 13881 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 1055166744 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbp:arguedate
  • 0001-10-07 (xsd:gMonthDay)
dbp:argueyear
  • 1987 (xsd:integer)
dbp:case
  • Taylor v. Illinois, (en)
dbp:courtlistener
dbp:decidedate
  • 0001-01-25 (xsd:gMonthDay)
dbp:decideyear
  • 1988 (xsd:integer)
dbp:dissent
  • Brennan (en)
  • Blackmun (en)
dbp:findlaw
dbp:fullname
  • Ray Taylor v. State of Illinois (en)
dbp:googlescholar
dbp:holding
  • The refusal to allow an undisclosed witness to testify after a trial has started does not violate a defendant's right to obtain favorable testimony under the Compulsory Process Clause. Illinois Appellate Court affirmed. (en)
dbp:joindissent
  • Marshall, Blackmun (en)
dbp:joinmajority
  • Rehnquist, White, O'Connor, Scalia (en)
dbp:justia
dbp:lawsapplied
dbp:litigants
  • Taylor v. Illinois (en)
dbp:loc
dbp:majority
  • Stevens (en)
dbp:oyez
dbp:parallelcitations
  • 172800.0
dbp:prior
  • 17280.0
dbp:uspage
  • 400 (xsd:integer)
dbp:usvol
  • 484 (xsd:integer)
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dcterms:subject
rdf:type
rdfs:comment
  • 泰勒诉伊利诺伊州案(英語:Taylor v. Illinois, U.S. 400 (1988))是美国联邦最高法院裁决的一个1988年的司法案件。在该案中,法院认为在某些特殊情况下,可以拒绝某些被告一方的证人出庭作证,即使这样会对被告不利。最高法院之前曾在1967年的华盛顿诉德克萨斯州案中裁定,美利坚合众国宪法第六条修正案中的强制程序条款(即“被告有权……以强制程序取得对其有利的证人”)不仅适用于联邦法院,同样也适用于各州法院。而到了本案中,法院首次对被告的这一权利作出了限制,指出这样的权利并不是绝对的,在一些特殊情况下,为了“平衡公众利益”,如让审判能得以正常而迅速地进行,可以对被告取得证人的权利作出一定限制。 在泰勒案以前,最高法院对被告提出辩护的权利解释非常宽泛,但从本案开始,法院对这一权利作出了限制,要求被告一方遵守法庭规则,特别是那些对原告和被告有同等效果的规则。法院的这一决定是以5比3的投票结果作出的,大法官約翰·保羅·史蒂文斯起草了法院判决书中的主要意见书,首席大法官威廉·伦奎斯特、大法官桑德拉·戴·奧康納、安東寧·斯卡利亞和拜倫·懷特附议;大法官小威廉·布伦南和哈利·布萊克蒙分别撰写了不同意见,他们和大法官瑟古德·马歇尔认为不应该仅因一位被告的律师没有完全列出其证人名单就对被告的这一权利加以限制。 (zh)
  • Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that defense witnesses can be prevented from testifying under certain circumstances, even if that hurts the defense's case. Taylor was the first case to hold that there is no absolute bar to blocking the testimony of a surprise witness, even if that is an essential witness for the defendant, a limitation of the broad right to present a defense recognized in Washington v. Texas (1967). (en)
rdfs:label
  • Taylor v. Illinois (en)
  • 泰勒诉伊利诺伊州案 (zh)
owl:sameAs
prov:wasDerivedFrom
foaf:depiction
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
foaf:name
  • (en)
  • Ray Taylor v. State of Illinois (en)
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Powered by OpenLink Virtuoso    This material is Open Knowledge     W3C Semantic Web Technology     This material is Open Knowledge    Valid XHTML + RDFa
This content was extracted from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License