Commonwealth v. Dorisca
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the CourtAgnes, J.
The purpose of the confrontation clause is “ ‘to put beyond the possibility of alteration except by the people themselves the principle already established as a part of the common law that the witnesses should confront the accused face to face’ ... [in order to] ‘exclude any evidence by deposition, which could be given orally in the presence of the accused.’ ” Commonwealth v. Bergstrom, 402 Mass. 534, 544-545 (1988), quoting from Commonwealth v. Gallo, 275 Mass. 320, 333 (1931), and Commonwealth v. Slavski, 245 Mass. 405, 413 (1923). See Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1015-1016 (1988). There are…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Old Chief v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Coy v. IowaSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Commonwealth v. KozecMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1987
- Commonwealth v. BowdenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1980
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Commonwealth v. RodriguezMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2016
- COMMONWEALTH v. URIAH U., a juvenile (and a companion case ).Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2021
- Commonwealth v. Bura PhanMassachusetts Superior Court · 2026
- Commonwealth v. LearyMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2017
- Dorisca v. MarchilliDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2018