In Re: Est. of F.K., Petition of: M.K.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the purpose of cross-examination is “a full and fair opportunity to probe and expose ... infirmities”
• stating that the “Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish”
• emphasizing that while the Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for cross-examination, it does not guarantee “cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish”
• noting that the defendant must have “an opportunity for effective cross-examination,” not cross-examination in whatever form she chooses
• stating that the right to confrontation is normally satisfied if trial court does not limit the scope or nature of cross-examination
• providing that the State’s list of potential witnesses did not obligate the State to call all those listed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).