State v. Stout
Washington Supreme Court
1Dissent
¶46 (dissenting) — Today the majority eviscerates a fundamental guaranty of liberty by denying Roy Stout, Jr., his constitutional right to confront witnesses against him. I dissent because any person threatened with involuntary and indefinite commitment deserves at least minimum due process, and the United States Supreme Court as well as the precedent of this court hold the right to confrontation is an essential part of that process which is due under our state and federal constitutions.
Sanders, J.
*387¶47 Although the majority derides the right of confrontation as “ ‘for the idle purpose of…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Davis v. AlaskaSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Pointer v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Addington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.