Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cortez-Hernandez v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Virginia

Decided April 5, 2011No. Record 0458-10-4Published

1DissentHaley, J.

I

I respectfully dissent.

II

“‘[T]he main and essential purpose of confrontation is to secure for the opponent the opportunity of cross-examination.’ ” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1435, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) (quoting Davis v. Alaska, *84415 U.S. 308, 315, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 1110, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974)). Here, the trial court denied Cortez-Hernandez any opportunity to cross-examine a key Commonwealth witness on the material issue of whether he was the unprovoked perpetrator of murder.

The Commonwealth concedes the error. Appellee Br. at 13. Cortez-Hernandez objected to the…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Delaware v. Van ArsdallSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Davis v. AlaskaSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  4. Pointer v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  5. California v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1970

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API