Greene v. McElroy, 360 US 474 - Supreme Court 1959 Certain principles have remained relatively immutable in our jurisprudence. One of these is that where governmental action seriously injures an individual, and the reasonableness of the action depends on fact findings, the evidence used to prove the Governments case must be disclosed to the individual so that he has an opportunity to show that it is untrue. While this is important in the case of documentary evidence, it is even more important where the evidence consists of the testimony of individuals whose memory might be faulty or who, in fact, might be perjurers or persons motivated by malice, vindictiveness, intolerance, prejudice, or jealousy. We have formalized these protections in the requirements of confrontation and cross-examination. They have ancient roots.[25] They find expression in the Sixth Amendment which provides that in all criminal cases the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with 497*497 the witnesses against him. This Court has been zealous to protect these rights from erosion. It has spoken out not only in criminal cases, e. g., Mattox v. United States, 156 U. S. 237, 242-244; Kirby v. United States, 174 U. S. 47; Motes v. United States, 178 U. S. 458, 474; In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, 273, but also in all types of cases where administrative and regulatory actions were under scrutiny. E. g., Southern R. Co. v. Virginia, 290 U. S. 190; Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 301 U. S. 292; Morgan v. United States, 304 U. S. 1, 19; Carter v. Kubler, 320 U. S. 243; Reilly v. Pinkus, 338 U. S. 269. Nor, as it has been pointed out, has Congress ignored these fundamental requirements in enacting regulatory legislation. Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 168-169 (concurring opinion). scholar.google/scholar_case?case=6340139420730730477&q=greene+v+mcelroy+360+us+474&hl=en&as_sdt=3,48
Posted on: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 22:54:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015