| dbo:abstract
|
- Washington contra Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967), és un cas del Tribunal Suprem dels Estats Units en el qual el Tribunal va decidir que la de la Sisena Esmena de la Constitució (que garanteix el dret d'un acusat penal a forçar la compareixença dels testimonis de la seva part) és aplicable tant als tribunals estatals com als federals. Jackie Washington havia intentat cridar al seu coacusat com a testimoni, però els tribunals de Texas ho varen impedir perquè la llei estatal impedia que els coacusats declaressin l'un per l'altre, basant-se en la teoria que era probable que mentissin a l'estrada. El Tribunal Suprem va raonar que la de la catorzena esmena feia necessari el dret d'obligar els testimonis de la defensa a declarar pel dret per a l'acusat d'un "procés degut" i just, la qual cosa s'aplica als estats. Només el jutge John Marshall Harlan II es va apartar de l'enfocament del "procés degut" del Tribunal, tot i que va estar d'acord amb el resultat, tal com feia regularment en casos relacionats . L'impacte de Washington es va delimitar en un cas posterior, Taylor v. Illinois (1988), en el qual el Tribunal de Justícia afirmava que "els interessos públics compensatoris", com ara la necessitat de tirar endavant els casos ràpidament, podrien equilibrar-se amb el dret d'un acusat a presentar testimonis. Amb Taylor, el Tribunal Suprem va confirmar l'ordre d'un jutge que impedia declarar als testimonis de la defensa a causa del fracàs deliberat de l'advocat de la defensa a l'hora de als fiscals abans del judici. Les accions de l'advocat defensor van provocar un llarg retard en el procediment que el jutge del judici va considerar injustificat. Els estudiosos de dret han vist aquesta nova concessió de discreció als jutges del judici com un canvi per confiar en una "justícia eficient", una visió més limitada dels drets del judici que no el "dret a presentar una defensa" establert per Washington. (ca)
- Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution (guaranteeing the right of a criminal defendant to force the attendance of witnesses for their side) is applicable in state courts as well as federal courts. Jackie Washington had attempted to call his co-defendant as a witness, but was blocked by Texas courts because state law prevented co-defendants from testifying for each other, under the theory that they would be likely to lie for each other on the stand. The Supreme Court reasoned that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment made the right to be able to compel defense witnesses to testify necessary for a defendant's "due process" rights to fair proceedings, which applies to the states. Only Justice John Marshall Harlan II parted from the Court's "due process" focus, though he agreed with the outcome, as he regularly did in cases involving whether to apply federal rights to state courts. The impact of Washington was narrowed by a later case, Taylor v. Illinois (1988), in which the Court said that "countervailing public interests", like the need to move through cases quickly, could be balanced against a defendant's right to present witnesses. In Taylor, the Supreme Court upheld a judge's order blocking defense witnesses from testifying due to the defense attorney's deliberate failure to disclose evidence to prosecutors earlier in the trial. The defense attorney's actions resulted in a lengthy delay in the proceedings which the trial judge felt was unjustified. Legal scholars have seen this new grant of discretion to trial judges as a change to relying on "efficient justice", a more limited vision of trial rights than the "right to present a defense" created in Washington. (en)
- 华盛顿诉德克萨斯州案（英語：Washington v. Texas）， U.S. 14 (1967)是一起美国联邦最高法院判决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的里程碑式案件。 本案被告杰基·华盛顿（Jackie Washington）试图传唤其同案被告作为证人，但德克萨斯州法规定同案多名被告不能相互作证；因为州法认为，这样的话各被告会串供，在证人席上各自撒谎。最高法院认为，被告以强制程序取得对其有利的证人，也应该是第十四条修正案中正当程序条款所包含的“正当程序”的一部分，这些正当程序是为了保证被告获得一个公平的审判，因此同样适用于各州。美國最高法院大法官约翰·马歇尔·哈兰二世虽然也同意推翻州法院的判决，但是他的理由与另外8位大法官不同，为此他单独写下了自己的协同意见书。 这一判决的影响有经之后的案件判例而减小。1988年的泰勒诉伊利诺伊州案中，最高法院认为，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。在该案中，被告律师故意不在庭审前向检察官明示自己所拥有的证据（证人），结果导致案件审理时间延长；法官认为这是不合理的，因此拒绝该证人出庭作证；最高法院支持了这位法官的决定。法律学者认为，这一个决定不仅对华盛顿案中确立的强制程序原则作出了一定的限制，而且增强了法官在案件审理中的自由裁量权。 (zh)
|
| dbo:thumbnail
| |
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 27748 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:arguedatea
|
- 0001-03-15 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:arguedateb
| |
| dbp:argueyear
| |
| dbp:case
|
- Washington v. Texas, (en)
|
| dbp:concurrence
| |
| dbp:courtlistener
| |
| dbp:decidedate
|
- 0001-06-12 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:decideyear
| |
| dbp:findlaw
| |
| dbp:fullname
|
- Jackie Washington v. Texas (en)
|
| dbp:googlescholar
| |
| dbp:holding
|
- The Compulsory Process Clause is incorporated against the states. Under that Clause, the Texas law unconstitutionally bars defendants from obtaining witnesses in their favor because it blocks a "relevant and material" witness from testifying for the defense. (en)
|
| dbp:joinmajority
|
- Black, Douglas, Clark, Brennan, Stewart, White, Fortas (en)
|
| dbp:justia
| |
| dbp:lawsapplied
| |
| dbp:litigants
| |
| dbp:loc
| |
| dbp:majority
| |
| dbp:oyez
| |
| dbp:parallelcitations
| |
| dbp:prior
| |
| dbp:subsequent
| |
| dbp:uspage
| |
| dbp:usvol
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- Washington contra Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967), és un cas del Tribunal Suprem dels Estats Units en el qual el Tribunal va decidir que la de la Sisena Esmena de la Constitució (que garanteix el dret d'un acusat penal a forçar la compareixença dels testimonis de la seva part) és aplicable tant als tribunals estatals com als federals. Jackie Washington havia intentat cridar al seu coacusat com a testimoni, però els tribunals de Texas ho varen impedir perquè la llei estatal impedia que els coacusats declaressin l'un per l'altre, basant-se en la teoria que era probable que mentissin a l'estrada. (ca)
- Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution (guaranteeing the right of a criminal defendant to force the attendance of witnesses for their side) is applicable in state courts as well as federal courts. Jackie Washington had attempted to call his co-defendant as a witness, but was blocked by Texas courts because state law prevented co-defendants from testifying for each other, under the theory that they would be likely to lie for each other on the stand. (en)
- 华盛顿诉德克萨斯州案（英語：Washington v. Texas）， U.S. 14 (1967)是一起美国联邦最高法院判决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的里程碑式案件。 本案被告杰基·华盛顿（Jackie Washington）试图传唤其同案被告作为证人，但德克萨斯州法规定同案多名被告不能相互作证；因为州法认为，这样的话各被告会串供，在证人席上各自撒谎。最高法院认为，被告以强制程序取得对其有利的证人，也应该是第十四条修正案中正当程序条款所包含的“正当程序”的一部分，这些正当程序是为了保证被告获得一个公平的审判，因此同样适用于各州。美國最高法院大法官约翰·马歇尔·哈兰二世虽然也同意推翻州法院的判决，但是他的理由与另外8位大法官不同，为此他单独写下了自己的协同意见书。 (zh)
|
| rdfs:label
|
- Washington contra Texas (ca)
- Washington v. Texas (en)
- 华盛顿诉德克萨斯州案 (zh)
|
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:depiction
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| foaf:name
|
- (en)
- Jackie Washington v. Texas (en)
|
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
