{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

US v. Yates - with an exception The exception to...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Judy Duong Prof. Brierton 11/26/07 United States v. Yates Background Anton Pusztai and Anita Yates were involved in operating an online pharmacy based in Alabama. They were charged with mail fraud and other crimes, where the government allowed two witnesses to testify who were in Australia: Paul Christian and Dr. Tibor Konkoly. The court allowed the witnesses to testify via two-way video conferencing, because the witnesses refuse to travel to the United States. Pusztai and Yates argued that allowing the testimony would violate their Sixth Amendment to confront witnesses and it was an unreliable form of testimony. They were found guilty and later appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Rule of Law The Sixth Amendment allows the accused to enjoy the rights to confront the witnesses against him or her, and this clause is known as the Confrontation Clause, but this guarantee is
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: with an exception. The exception to confronting witnesses is if the confrontation is necessary to further an important public policy. Analysis The prosecutor’s need for the witnesses are crucial to the trial, but the need for the testimony in order to make a case and resolve it are not public policies that are important enough to waive Pusztai and Yates’ right to confront accusers face-to-face. This is based on a Maryland’s case where certain children are protected from trauma caused by confronting attackers, where the Court found that this case does not meet the standard for an important public policy. Therefore, the Court reasoned that admission of two-way video conferencing of witnesses violated the defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 2

US v. Yates - with an exception The exception to...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online