Vengeancia “The 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution sets out many rights for defendants during a criminal prosecution, including the right of the accused to confront their accusers. The relevant text of the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment reads as follows: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him.
The 14th Amendment has made the 6th Amendment’s right to confrontation applicable to state court as well as federal court.
The confrontation clause guarantees criminal defendants the opportunity to face the prosecution’s witnesses in the case against them and dispute the witnesses’ testimony. This guarantee applies to both statements made in court and statements made outside of court that are offered as evidence during trial.” Read more.
Get a transcript of a recent court case. You’ll notice that, under the heading of APPEARANCES, the defendant is listed, but the “people” failed to appear!! This case should be dismissed for the lack of the Right to face your flesh and blood accuser. Was there an injury or loss to a real man or woman? If not, and none comes forward, there’s no actionable case. Order the case dismissed and walk out the door. Download this PDF on how to challenge jurisdiction. Read about Stating Your Claim.
“The text of the Amendment contemplates two classes of witnesses–those against the defendant and those in his favor. The prosecution must produce the former;3 the defendant may call the latter. Contrary to respondent’s assertion, there is not a third category of witnesses, helpful to the prosecution, but somehow immune from confrontation.” Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts.
“where testimonial statements are at issue, the only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is confrontation…” Crawford v. Washington.
If a witness is not physically present in a courtroom and does not literally face the defendant against whom he is testifying, there is no face-to-face confrontation as recognized by the Sixth Amendment.
“The primary object of the constitutional provision in question was to prevent depositions of ex parte affidavits . . . being used against the prisoner in lieu of a personal examination and cross-examination of the witness in which the accused has an opportunity not only of testing the recollection and sifting the conscience of the witness, but of compelling him to stand face to face with the jury in order that they may look at him, and judge by his demeanor upon the stand and the manner in which he gives his testimony whether he is worthy of belief” Read more.
Are you a “people” subject to God and common law, or are you an imaginary abstracted man/woman aka PERSON, subject to statutory (legal) law? This is an extremely important question and cannot be ignored!! It is foundational to law in America today. Even if you don’t “believe” in God, you had better get out your Bible and tote it to court with you! Only real people have Rights. PERSONS=corporations=Voodoo Dolls of the Elite have no Rights, only privileges, granted to them by their creator, the corporation dba the govt. of the U.S. of A. Read more here. Also, read Maxims of Law here.
The Confrontation Clause mandates that a criminal defendant be afforded “the right physically to face those who testify against him.” Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 5 1, 107 S.Ct. 989,998,94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987) here.
You can subpoena the accuser. Every subpoena must:
(i) state the court from which it issued;
(ii) state the title of the action, the court in which it is pending, and its civil-action number;
(iii) command each person to whom it is directed to do the following at a specified time and place: attend and testify…
As observed by the Supreme Court of the United States, “it is this literal right to ‘confront’ the witness at the time of the trial that forms the core of the values furthered by the Confrontation Clause.” California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149,157,90 S.Ct. 1930,1934,26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970) (emphasis added).
See also Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56,63,100 S.Ct. 2531,2537,65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980) (“[T]he Confrontation Clause reflects a preference for face-to-face confrontation at trial.“); Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1016, 108 S.Ct. 2798, 2800, 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988) (“We have never doubted, therefore, that the Confrontation Clause guarantees the defendant a face-to-face meeting with witnesses appearing before the trier of fact.“).
The right to physically confront one’s accuser is ancient, and the United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that a right of confrontation existed even under Roman Law. As observed by the Supreme Court, while the Roman Governor Festus was discussing the proper treatment of his prisoner, Festus stated, “It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man up to die before the accused has met his accusers face to face.“’ Coy, 487 U.S. at 1015 (quoting Acts 25:16).
The Court also observed that “Shakespeare was thus describing the root meaning of confrontation when he had Richard the Second say: ‘Then call them to our presence- face to face, and frowning brow to brow, ourselves will hear the accuser and the accused freely speak…“’ Coy, 487 U.S. at 1016 (quoting Richard II, Act 1, SC. 1).
The majority opinion in Coy was “embellished with references to and quotations from antiquity in part to convey that there is something deep in human nature that regards face-to-face confrontation between accused and accuser as ‘essential to a fair trial in a criminal prosecution.“‘487 U.S. at 1017 (quoting Pointer v. State of Texas, 380 U.S. 400,404,85 SCt. 1065, 1068, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965)). here.