About: Rock v. Arkansas

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- Rule:
- Inverse Functional Properties:
- "Same As":

About: Rock v. Arkansas Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase, within Data Space : dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon

http://dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FRock_v._Arkansas

Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987), was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court held that criminals have a constitutional right to testify on their own behalf. The right of a person to represent oneself in a court of law had been recognized for a very long time prior to this case. This right has been established by both legislative enactments and judicial rulings alike. An 1864 appropriations act allowed defendants to testify for themselves. The right of a criminal defendant to represent oneself had already been recognized by courts prior to this case. In Faretta v. California, the United States Supreme Court held that criminal defendants are constitutionally free to decline or reject professional lawyers as legal representation in state-level courts as well as to se

Attributes	Values
rdf:type	Thing case Legal Case unit of work Legal case Supreme Court of the United States case
rdfs:label	Rock v. Arkansas (en)
rdfs:comment	Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987), was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court held that criminals have a constitutional right to testify on their own behalf. The right of a person to represent oneself in a court of law had been recognized for a very long time prior to this case. This right has been established by both legislative enactments and judicial rulings alike. An 1864 appropriations act allowed defendants to testify for themselves. The right of a criminal defendant to represent oneself had already been recognized by courts prior to this case. In Faretta v. California, the United States Supreme Court held that criminal defendants are constitutionally free to decline or reject professional lawyers as legal representation in state-level courts as well as to se (en)
foaf:name	(en) Rock v. Arkansas (en)
dcterms:subject	United States Supreme Court cases United States Fourteenth Amendment case law 1987 in United States case law United States Fifth Amendment self-incrimination case law United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court United States Fourth Amendment case law
Wikipage page ID	58157759 (xsd:integer)
Wikipage revision ID	1125010355 (xsd:integer)
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage	Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts Barker v. Wingo Betts v. Brady Blakely v. Washington Bounds v. Smith Davis v. Washington Hoyt v. Florida Johnson v. Louisiana Johnson v. Zerbst Judiciary Act of 1789 Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado Due Process Clause Presumption of innocence United States Supreme Court cases Crawford v. Washington United States Fourteenth Amendment case law George Washington Gideon v. Wainwright Godinez v. Moran Apodaca v. Oregon Apprendi v. New Jersey 1987 in United States case law Compulsory Process Clause 1st United States Congress Bruton v. United States Bullcoming v. New Mexico United States Fifth Amendment self-incrimination case law Scott v. Illinois Alabama v. Shelton Alleyne v. United States Faretta v. California Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States federal courts United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court Taylor v. Louisiana Argersinger v. Hamlin Arkansas Supreme Court United States Fourth Amendment case law L. Ed. 2d Supreme Court of the United States Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution Indiana v. Edwards Michigan v. Bryant Self-incrimination Sheppard v. Maxwell Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution Ramos v. Louisiana
Link from a Wikipage to an external page	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/483/44/case.html https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/111933/rock-v-arkansas/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/483/44 http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep483/usrep483044/usrep483044.pdf https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/483/44.html https://www.oyez.org/cases/1986/86-130
sameAs	Rock v. Arkansas Rock v. Arkansas
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate	dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Reflist dbt:Ussc dbt:SCOTUS-stub dbt:Sixth_Amendment
Dissent	Rehnquist (en)
JoinDissent	White, O'Connor, Scalia (en)
JoinMajority	Brennan, Marshall, Powell, Stevens (en)
oyez	https://www.oyez.org/cases/1986/86-130
ParallelCitations	172800.0 (second)
USPage	44 (xsd:integer)
USVol	483 (xsd:integer)
ArgueDate	0001-03-23 (xsd:gMonthDay)
ArgueYear	1987 (xsd:integer)
case	Rock v. Arkansas, (en)
courtlistener	https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/111933/rock-v-arkansas/
DecideDate	0001-06-22 (xsd:gMonthDay)
DecideYear	1987 (xsd:integer)
findlaw	https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/483/44.html
fullname	Rock v. Arkansas (en)
Holding	Criminal defendants have a right to testify in their own behalf under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. Although the right to present relevant testimony is not without limitation, restrictions placed on a defendant's constitutional right to testify by a State's evidentiary rules may not be arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve. Arkansas' per se rule excluding all hypnotically refreshed testimony infringes impermissibly on a criminal defendant's right to testify on his or her own behalf. Despite any unreliability that hypnosis may introduce into testimony, the procedure has been credited as instrumental in obtaining particular types of information. Moreover, hypnotically refreshed testimony is subject to verification by corroborating evidence and other traditional means of assessing accuracy, and inaccuracies can be reduced by procedural safeguards such as the use of tape or video recording. The State's legitimate interest in barring unreliable evidence does not justify a per se exclusion, because the evidence may be reliable in an individual case. Here, the expert's corroboration of petitioner's hypnotically enhanced memories and the trial judge's conclusion that the tape recordings indicated that the doctor did not suggest responses with leading questions are circumstances that the trial court should have considered in determining admissibility. Arkansas Supreme Court reversed. (en)
justia	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/483/44/case.html
Litigants	Rock v. Arkansas (en)
majority	Blackmun (en)
loc	http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep483/usrep483044/usrep483044.pdf

Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git139 as of Feb 29 2024

Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3330 as of Mar 19 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (378 GB total memory, 67 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software