Supreme Court· 6/3/1986

Lee v. Illinois

Citations

476 U.S. 530
106 S. Ct. 2056
90 L. Ed. 2d 514
1986 U.S. LEXIS 83
54 U.S.L.W. 4555

How courts have described this case

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

holding that trial court’s reliance on co-defendant’s statement, given only after he had been told that defendant had implicated him, was presumptively unreliable
recognizing that the “truthfinding function of the Confrontation Clause is uniquely threatened when an accomplice’s confession is sought to be introduced against a criminal defendant without the benefit of cross-examination”
holding that state court “correctly found that Deborah’s state- ments to Butler and Maggart fall within the excited-utterance exception”
recognizing that the “truthfinding function of the 22 1 Confrontation Clause is uniquely threatened when an accomplice’s confession is sought to be 2 introduced against a criminal defendant without the benefit of cross-examination”
noting that there exists a “time-honored teaching that a codefendant’s confession inculpating the accused is inherently unreliable”
holding that inculpatory hearsay statements by accomplices are “presumptively unreliable”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

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

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

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

Other cases named Lee v. Illinois

9 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.