Herbert William Chipman v. James Mercer, Chief Probation Officer

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that \some topics may be of such minimal relevance that the trial court would be justified in either totally prohibiting cross-examination about them or in allowing only limited questioning\
• \Confrontation clause doctrine appears to require reversal if there is any error; whether the error was harmless in the particular case is not considered.\
• “Confrontation clause doctrine appears to require reversal if there is any error; whether the error was harmless in the particular case is not considered.”
• error to preclude all cross-examination for racial bias of complainant who had used racial slur during conversation with defense investigator
• no unrestricted right to present evidence to identify another as the culprit
• where guilt established overwhelmingly by other evidence, harmless error to preclude black defendant from cross-examining white witness for racial bias who, evidence had shown, used racial epithet in referring to defendant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).