Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Ventris

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided February 1, 2008No. 94,002Published

1DissentMcFarland, C.J.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision holding that, once a criminal prosecution has commenced, statements made to an undercover informant surreptitiously acting as an agent for the State are not admissible at trial for any reason, including impeachment of the defendant’s testimony.

Although the United States Supreme Court has not addressed this precise issue, it has repeatedly and consistently allowed the admission of evidence and statements otherwise inadmissible in the prosecution’s case in chief to be used for purposes of impeachment, except where such evidence was obtained by…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Berger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  3. Mincey v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  4. Massiah v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  5. Harris v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971

19 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