{"id":30755,"date":"2017-12-17T08:00:29","date_gmt":"2017-12-17T13:00:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=30755"},"modified":"2017-12-17T05:49:16","modified_gmt":"2017-12-17T10:49:16","slug":"ky-confrontation-clause-doesnt-apply-in-suppression-hearings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=30755","title":{"rendered":"KY: Confrontation clause doesn’t apply in suppression hearings"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Sixth Amendment\u2019s confrontation clause doesn\u2019t apply to a suppression hearing to get the typical CI on the stand to attack his reliability. [Now, if the CI was a material witness to the case under Roviaro, likely so.] Hawkins v. Commonwealth<\/a>, 2017 Ky. LEXIS 517 (Dec. 14, 2017):
\n<\/p>\n

Furthermore, Hawkins does not have a valid claim under the Confrontation Clause to call the CI as a witness at his suppression hearing. It has been stated that, “The main purpose of confrontation is to insure the right of cross-examination and protect the accused from conviction by means of ex parte testimony or affidavits given in his absence. It is a rule concerned with the method by which evidence is produced during trial.” Our holding is supported by Thompkins v. Commonwealth where we stated, “The Confrontation clause does not give a defendant the right to discover the identity of an informant at a pretrial hearing under the guise of attacking his\/her reliability.” Hawkins had ample ability to question Detective Newman about the CI at the suppression hearing, including the fact that the CI was a convicted criminal and had been paid in the past for the information he provided against others.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Sixth Amendment\u2019s confrontation clause doesn\u2019t apply to a suppression hearing to get the typical CI on the stand to attack his reliability. [Now, if the CI was a material witness to the case under Roviaro, likely so.] Hawkins v. … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[66,111],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-30755","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-burden-of-proof","category-suppression-hearings"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30755","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=30755"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30755\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":30756,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30755\/revisions\/30756"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=30755"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=30755"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=30755"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}