State v. Burkhart
Tennessee Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HENRY, Justice.
We granted certiorari in this criminal action in order to examine the constitutional right of a criminal defendant, who is represented by counsel, to cross-examine witnesses and to argue his own case.1
The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed defendant’s conviction for first degree burglary, and awarded a new trial, upon the authority of Wilson v. State, 50 Tenn. 232 (1871) and Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975).
I
A proper construction of the Federal and State constitutional provisions is dependent upon an understanding of the…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Baxter v. RoseTennessee Supreme Court · 1975
- Ferguson v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- United States v. Robert Neil Conder, United States of America v. Bernard Joseph Grogan, United States of America v. William Moore PegramCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1970
- United States v. Raphael PlattnerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1964
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by93 opinions
- Momon v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 2000
- State v. HesterTennessee Supreme Court · 2010
- State v. MelsonTennessee Supreme Court · 1982
- Williams v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 2001
- Artis Whitehead v. State of TennesseeTennessee Supreme Court · 2013
88 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.