State v. Acker.
Hawaii Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by
ACOBA, J.,
in which McKENNA, J., Joins.
In my view, the decision by the circuit court of the first circuit (the court) denying the request of Petitioner/ Defendant-Appellant Maryann Acker (Maryann) to recall Respondent/Defendant William Acker (William) as a witness in her ease-in-chief violated Maryann’s constitutional right to compulsory process, right to confrontation, right to present a complete defense, and right to a fair trial. See U.S. Const, amend. VI, XIV; Haw. Const, art. I, § 14. Respectfully, the court’s decision to accept the testimony of Deputy…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Davis v. AlaskaSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Chambers v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- California v. TrombettaSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Rock v. ArkansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- United States v. Valenzuela-BernalSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.