Supreme Court· 6/19/1987

Kentucky v. Stincer

Citations

482 U.S. 730
107 S. Ct. 2658
96 L. Ed. 2d 631
1987 U.S. LEXIS 2727
55 U.S.L.W. 4901

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 right to be present is “not guaranteed when presence would be useless, or the benefit but a shadow”
holding that the right to be present is “not guaranteed when presence would be useless, or the benefit but a shadow”
holding Confrontation Clause not violated when defendant’s absence does not deprive him of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses effectively
indicating that the Confrontation Clause \may well\ protect right to presence at a witness competency hearing because of the relationship to trial testimony
indicating that the Confrontation Clause “may well” protect right to presence at a witness competency hearing because of the relationship to trial testimony
concluding that right to be present was not implicated by a competency hearing for witnesses scheduled to testify at trial because all questions of the witnesses related to then-ability to recollect rather than to substantive testimony against the defendant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Blackmun, Rehnquist, White, Powell, O'Connor, Scalia, Marshall, Brennan, Stevens

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

874 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

33 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Kentucky v. Stincer

3 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.