{"id":3691,"date":"2018-03-05T06:46:05","date_gmt":"2018-03-05T14:46:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/?p=3691"},"modified":"2018-12-15T10:03:16","modified_gmt":"2018-12-15T18:03:16","slug":"6th-amendment-cross-examine-witness","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/2018\/03\/05\/6th-amendment-cross-examine-witness\/","title":{"rendered":"Does the 6th Amendment guarantee the right to cross-examine a witness?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Attorney<\/a><\/p>\n

State vs. Dist. Ct. (Baker (Jeffrey)) (Nev. Supreme Ct. \u2013 Mar. 1, 2018)<\/strong><\/p>\n

The issue is whether a defendant had an adequate opportunity to cross-examine a witness when, immediately after the State\u2019s direct examination at the preliminary hearing, the defendant waived his right to continue the preliminary hearing.<\/p>\n

Baker stood accused of one count of sexually motivated coercion and eight counts of lewdness with a child under the age of 14. At the preliminary hearing, Baker\u2019s cousin, C.J., testified in detail regarding two instances in which Baker attempted to engage her in sexual activity. The first instance occurred when C.J. was 11 years old; the second when she was 13. Baker was well into his 20s on both occasions.<\/p>\n

During the preliminary hearing, when C.J. finished testifying, the justice court said, \u201cAll right. Cross.\u201d Instead of beginning cross-examination, Baker\u2019s attorney asked for the court\u2019s indulgence as he conferred off the record with the prosecutor. He then announced: \u201cToday pursuant to negotiations, Mr. Baker will unconditionally waive his preliminary hearing. In district court he\u2019ll plead guilty to one count of attempt[ed] lewdness with a minor.\u201d After canvassing Baker, the justice court accepted his unconditional waiver of the remainder of the preliminary hearing.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

At the district court arraignment two weeks later, Baker presented his signed guilty plea agreement. The court questioned Baker as to whether he understood the consequences of pleading guilty; he indicated that he did. Then the court asked if Baker was pleading guilty because he in fact attempted to commit a lewd act upon C.J. Baker equivocated before answering in the negative: \u201cIt\u2019s not true.\u201d The court rejected Bakers guilty plea and ordered the State to prepare an amended information reinstating the original charges.<\/p>\n

One week later, C.J. committed suicide. The State moved to admit at trial the transcript of C.J.\u2019s testimony at the preliminary hearing. The district court denied the motion, finding that Baker did not have an adequate opportunity to cross-examine C.J. at the preliminary hearing. The State challenged that order.<\/p>\n

Because the State cannot appeal a final judgment in a criminal case, see NRS 177.015(3)<\/a>, the State has no remedy in law to challenge the district court\u2019s evidentiary ruling. See <\/em>State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong)<\/em><\/a>, 127 Nev. 927, 267 P.3d 777, 779 (2011). The Supreme Court of Nevada therefore exercised its discretion to consider the State\u2019s petition.<\/p>\n

On appeal, the State argued that the district court arbitrarily and capriciously exercised its discretion when it denied the State\u2019s motion to admit C.J.\u2019s testimony from the preliminary hearing.<\/p>\n

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment<\/a> guarantees that \u201c[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right. . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him\u201d In accordance with that right, prior testimony from a witness unavailable at trial is admissible only if the defendant had \u201ca prior opportunity for cross-examination.\u201d Crawford v. Washington<\/a>, 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004).<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court of Nevada explained<\/a> that in Chavez v. State<\/em><\/a>, 125 Nev. 328, 213 P.3d 476 (2009), it held that a preliminary hearing can afford a defendant an adequate opportunity to confront witnesses against him pursuant to Crawford<\/em><\/a>. The adequacy of the opportunity to confront is decided on a case-by-case basis, turning upon the discovery available to the defendant at the time and the manner in which the magistrate judge allows the cross-examination to proceed. Applying that test to the facts in Chavez<\/em><\/a>, in which a victim of sexual assaults died after testifying at a preliminary hearing but before trial, the Court noted that nearly all the discovery was complete at the time of the hearing, and the magistrate judge allowed Chavez unrestricted opportunity to confront the witness on all the pertinent issues. The Court therefore concluded that admitting the witness\u2019s testimony at trial did not violate Chavez\u2019s Confrontation Clause rights.<\/p>\n

The Court noted<\/a> that the facts of this case were similar to those in Chavez<\/em><\/a>. When C.J. testified against Baker at the preliminary hearing, discovery was nearly complete. Baker had transcripts of C.J.\u2019s statements to law enforcement, a copy of the Declaration of Arrest, the crime report, the victim\u2019s mother\u2019s handwritten voluntary statement, and the detective\u2019s case report. In sum, the discovery was sufficient for Baker to have cross-examined C.j. See <\/em>Estes v. State<\/em><\/a>, 122 Nev. 1123, 1140, 146 P.3d 1114, 1126 (2006) (\u201cAs [the defendant] obtained the police report during discovery, he had the opportunity to cross-examine [the victim] on the report’s contents . . .\u201d).<\/p>\n

The Court further noted<\/a> that the sole relevant difference between this case and Chavez<\/a><\/em> is that Baker chose not to cross-examine the witness who testified against him at the preliminary hearing. He was not denied an opportunity to do so; there is nothing in the record to suggest that the court impeded or discouraged cross-examination. The Court saw no reason to differentiate between a defendant who cross-examines a witness at the preliminary hearing-like the defendant in Chavez<\/a><\/em> – and a defendant, like Baker, who chooses not to. \u201c[T]he 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.\u201d Chavez<\/a><\/em>, 125 Nev. at 338, 213 P.3d at 483; see also Hinojos-Mendoza v. People<\/a><\/em>, 169 P.3d 662, 668 (Colo. 2007) (\u201c[W]here a defendant chooses not to take advantage of the opportunity to cross-examine a witness, the defendant has not been denied his constitutional right to confrontation.\u201d); Clark v. State<\/a><\/em>, 808 N.E.2d 1183, 1189-90 (Ind. 2004) (\u201c[A]lthough the accused must have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness during the face-to-face confrontation, the opportunity does not have to be seized or successful. . . .\u201d); State v. Nelson<\/a><\/em>, 725 P.2d 1353, 1357 (Utah 1986) (\u201cIt is the opportunity to cross-examine that is guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions, not whether that opportunity is exercised.\u201d).<\/p>\n

The Court recognized<\/a> that it has previously indicated that three conditions must be met before testimony from a preliminary hearing may be used at a criminal trial: \u201cfirst, that the defendant was represented by counsel at the preliminary hearing; second, that counsel cross-examined the witness; third, that the witness is shown to be actually unavailable at the time of trial.\u201d Hernandez v. State<\/a><\/em>, 124 Nev. 639, 645, 188 P.3d 1126, 1130 (2008) (quoting Drummond v. State<\/a><\/em>, 86 Nev. 4, 7, 462 P.2d 1012, 1014 (1970)); see also Grant v. State<\/a><\/em>, 117 Nev. 427, 432, 24 P.3d 761, 764 (2001); Funches v. State<\/a><\/em>, 113 Nev. 916, 920, 944 P.2d 775, 777-78 (1997); Aesoph v. State<\/a><\/em>, 102 Nev. 316, 320, 721 P.2d 379, 381-82 (1986). The Court noted that all of these cases derive from Drummond<\/a><\/em>, in which we tried to reconcile dicta from two United States Supreme Court cases decided in the 1960s. The Court pointed out that neither Drummond<\/a><\/em> nor the cases cited above addressed the issue of whether an opportunity to cross examine suffices when no actual cross-examination occurred. See Grant<\/a><\/em>, 117 Nev. at 432 n.5, 24 P.3d at 764 n.5 (\u201c[Whether mere opportunity is sufficient has not been addressed since in most cases, the witness was actually cross-examined.\u201d). Therefore, because those cases did not turn on whether an opportunity to cross-examine is sufficient for confrontation purposes, The court determined that statements addressing that issue are noncontrolling dicta. See Armenta-Carpio v. State<\/a><\/em>, 129 Nev. 531, 535, 306 P.3d 395, 398 (2013) (declining to apply the doctrine of stare decisis to statements from a prior opinion that \u201cwent beyond answering the limited question that was before the court\u201d). The Court saw no reason to adhere to that dicta when the Supreme Court has since clarified that prior testimony from a witness unavailable at trial is admissible as long as the defendant had \u201ca prior opportunity for cross-examination.\u201d Crawford<\/a><\/em>, 541 U.S. at 68.<\/p>\n

That Court explained<\/a> that its holding was a straightforward application of Chavez<\/a><\/em>: when deciding whether a preliminary hearing afforded a defendant \u201can adequate opportunity to confront witnesses against him,\u201d key factors include the amount of discovery available to the defendant at the time of the hearing and the extent to which the \u201cjudge allowed the defendant a thorough opportunity to cross-examine the witness.\u201d Chavez<\/a><\/em>, 125 Nev. at 337, 339, 213 P.3d at 482, 484. Thus, the Court held that, when a defendant declines an opportunity to cross-examine a witness at a preliminary hearing, the defendant was not denied \u201ca thorough opportunity to cross-examine.\u201d Id<\/a><\/em>. at 339, 213 P.3d at 484. The Court determined that because the justice court offered Baker an opportunity to cross-examine C.J., and Baker possessed all discovery relevant to her testimony, Baker had \u201can adequate opportunity to confront\u201d C.J. at the preliminary hearing such that admitting her testimony at trial does not violate his Sixth Amendment rights. In denying the State’s motion to admit C.J.\u2019s testimony on Sixth Amendment grounds, The Court found that the district court misapplied Chavez<\/a><\/em> and, in so doing, manifestly abused its discretion.<\/p>\n

The Court concluded<\/a> that the Confrontation Clause guarantees defendants an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses who testify against them. It does not give defendants a sword to strike adverse testimony that the defendant chose not to contest. Baker received ample discovery at the time of the preliminary hearing, and he was not denied an opportunity to cross-examine C.J. Accordingly, the Court granted the petition issued a writ of mandamus instructing the district court to vacate its order denying the State\u2019s motion to admit C.J.\u2019s testimony.<\/p>\n

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report<\/a> for more legal news.<\/h2>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

State vs. Dist. Ct. (Baker (Jeffrey)) (Nev. Supreme Ct. \u2013 Mar. 1, 2018) The issue is whether a defendant had an adequate opportunity to cross-examine a witness when, immediately after the State\u2019s direct examination at the preliminary hearing, the defendant waived his right to continue the preliminary hearing. Baker stood accused of one count of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[366,563,365],"class_list":["post-3691","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-criminal-defense","tag-6th-amendment","tag-confrontation-clause","tag-sixth-amendment"],"yoast_head":"\nDoes the 6th Amendment guarantee the right to cross-examine a witness? - Nevada Appellate Report<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"At issue is a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness who testified against him.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/2018\/03\/05\/6th-amendment-cross-examine-witness\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Does the 6th Amendment guarantee the right to cross-examine a witness? - Nevada Appellate Report\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"At issue is a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness who testified against him.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/2018\/03\/05\/6th-amendment-cross-examine-witness\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Nevada Appellate Report\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/jeffjaegerlaw\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/jeffjaegerlaw\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-03-05T14:46:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-15T18:03:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2018\/03\/6th-Amendment-Confrontation-Cross-Examination.png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jeff Jaeger\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@jeffjaegerlaw\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@jeffjaegerlaw\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Jeff Jaeger\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/2018\/03\/05\/6th-amendment-cross-examine-witness\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/2018\/03\/05\/6th-amendment-cross-examine-witness\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Jeff Jaeger\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/#\/schema\/person\/aaf883142d6b4d6c37b928912f475055\"},\"headline\":\"Does the 6th Amendment guarantee the right to cross-examine a witness?\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-03-05T14:46:05+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-15T18:03:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/2018\/03\/05\/6th-amendment-cross-examine-witness\/\"},\"wordCount\":1537,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/2018\/03\/05\/6th-amendment-cross-examine-witness\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2018\/03\/6th-Amendment-Confrontation-Cross-Examination.png\",\"keywords\":[\"6th Amendment\",\"Confrontation Clause\",\"Sixth Amendment\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Criminal Defense\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/2018\/03\/05\/6th-amendment-cross-examine-witness\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/2018\/03\/05\/6th-amendment-cross-examine-witness\/\",\"name\":\"Does the 6th Amendment guarantee the right to cross-examine a witness? - Nevada Appellate Report\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/2018\/03\/05\/6th-amendment-cross-examine-witness\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/2018\/03\/05\/6th-amendment-cross-examine-witness\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2018\/03\/6th-Amendment-Confrontation-Cross-Examination.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-03-05T14:46:05+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-15T18:03:16+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/#\/schema\/person\/aaf883142d6b4d6c37b928912f475055\"},\"description\":\"At issue is a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness who testified against him.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/2018\/03\/05\/6th-amendment-cross-examine-witness\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/2018\/03\/05\/6th-amendment-cross-examine-witness\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/2018\/03\/05\/6th-amendment-cross-examine-witness\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2018\/03\/6th-Amendment-Confrontation-Cross-Examination.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2018\/03\/6th-Amendment-Confrontation-Cross-Examination.png\",\"width\":450,\"height\":414,\"caption\":\"Attorney cross-examining a witness\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/2018\/03\/05\/6th-amendment-cross-examine-witness\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Does the 6th Amendment guarantee the right to cross-examine a witness?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/\",\"name\":\"Nevada Appellate Report\",\"description\":\"Thoughts and commentary on recent Nevada appellate cases\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/#\/schema\/person\/aaf883142d6b4d6c37b928912f475055\",\"name\":\"Jeff Jaeger\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a80c0f8748487218bdd8766770c52aea629e674e3e037731d61e0b14f2283567?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a80c0f8748487218bdd8766770c52aea629e674e3e037731d61e0b14f2283567?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Jeff Jaeger\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/jeffjaegerlaw\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/jeffjaegerlaw\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/author\/jeff-jaeger\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Does the 6th Amendment guarantee the right to cross-examine a witness? - Nevada Appellate Report","description":"At issue is a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness who testified against him.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/2018\/03\/05\/6th-amendment-cross-examine-witness\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Does the 6th Amendment guarantee the right to cross-examine a witness? - Nevada Appellate Report","og_description":"At issue is a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness who testified against him.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/2018\/03\/05\/6th-amendment-cross-examine-witness\/","og_site_name":"Nevada Appellate Report","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/jeffjaegerlaw","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/jeffjaegerlaw","article_published_time":"2018-03-05T14:46:05+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-15T18:03:16+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2018\/03\/6th-Amendment-Confrontation-Cross-Examination.png","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"author":"Jeff Jaeger","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@jeffjaegerlaw","twitter_site":"@jeffjaegerlaw","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Jeff Jaeger","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/2018\/03\/05\/6th-amendment-cross-examine-witness\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/2018\/03\/05\/6th-amendment-cross-examine-witness\/"},"author":{"name":"Jeff Jaeger","@id":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/#\/schema\/person\/aaf883142d6b4d6c37b928912f475055"},"headline":"Does the 6th Amendment guarantee the right to cross-examine a witness?","datePublished":"2018-03-05T14:46:05+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-15T18:03:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/2018\/03\/05\/6th-amendment-cross-examine-witness\/"},"wordCount":1537,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/2018\/03\/05\/6th-amendment-cross-examine-witness\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2018\/03\/6th-Amendment-Confrontation-Cross-Examination.png","keywords":["6th Amendment","Confrontation Clause","Sixth Amendment"],"articleSection":["Criminal Defense"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/2018\/03\/05\/6th-amendment-cross-examine-witness\/","url":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/2018\/03\/05\/6th-amendment-cross-examine-witness\/","name":"Does the 6th Amendment guarantee the right to cross-examine a witness? - Nevada Appellate Report","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/2018\/03\/05\/6th-amendment-cross-examine-witness\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/2018\/03\/05\/6th-amendment-cross-examine-witness\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2018\/03\/6th-Amendment-Confrontation-Cross-Examination.png","datePublished":"2018-03-05T14:46:05+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-15T18:03:16+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/#\/schema\/person\/aaf883142d6b4d6c37b928912f475055"},"description":"At issue is a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness who testified against him.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/2018\/03\/05\/6th-amendment-cross-examine-witness\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/2018\/03\/05\/6th-amendment-cross-examine-witness\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/2018\/03\/05\/6th-amendment-cross-examine-witness\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2018\/03\/6th-Amendment-Confrontation-Cross-Examination.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2018\/03\/6th-Amendment-Confrontation-Cross-Examination.png","width":450,"height":414,"caption":"Attorney cross-examining a witness"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/2018\/03\/05\/6th-amendment-cross-examine-witness\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Does the 6th Amendment guarantee the right to cross-examine a witness?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/","name":"Nevada Appellate Report","description":"Thoughts and commentary on recent Nevada appellate cases","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/#\/schema\/person\/aaf883142d6b4d6c37b928912f475055","name":"Jeff Jaeger","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a80c0f8748487218bdd8766770c52aea629e674e3e037731d61e0b14f2283567?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a80c0f8748487218bdd8766770c52aea629e674e3e037731d61e0b14f2283567?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Jeff Jaeger"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/jeffjaegerlaw","https:\/\/x.com\/jeffjaegerlaw"],"url":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/author\/jeff-jaeger\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3691","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3691"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3691\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3699,"href":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3691\/revisions\/3699"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3691"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3691"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jeffjaeger.com\/nvapp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3691"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}