DELAWARE

v.

VAN ARSDALL

Citator

Cited By

• Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986)
  …6 A. 2d, at 7. The court held that “a blanket prohibition against exploring potential bias through cross-examination” [*678] is “a per se error,” so that “the actual prejudicial impact of such an error is not examined.” Ibid. We granted certiorari, 473 U. S. 923 (1985), and now vacate and remand. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of an accused in a criminal prosecution “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” The right of confrontation, which is secured for defe…
• Bracy v. Arizona, 474 U.S. 1110 (U.S. 1986)
  …t the State’s witnesses against him. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U. S. 308 (1974). I believe that petitioner’s claim may be substantial, requiring that his conviction be vacated. In the pending case of Delaware v. Van Arsdall (No. 84-1279), cert. granted, 473 U. S. 923 (1985), this Court is to decide whether an absolute denial of cross-examination of a prosecution witness concerning potential bias can ever be harmless error. The Court denies certiorari in this case without even waiting to consider what light the V…
• In re Lieb, 915 F.2d 180 (5th Cir. 1990)
  …. Burroughs v. Wallingford, 780 F. 2d 502, 503 (5th Cir.1986) (per curiam); accord Office of Personnel Mgt. v. American Fed’n of Gov’t Employees, 473 U.S. 1301, 1303-04, 105 S.Ct. 3467, 3468-69, 87 L.Ed.2d 603 (Burger, Circuit Justice), stay denied, 473 U.S. 923, 106 S.Ct. 11, 87 L.Ed.2d 674 (1985). Other courts of appeals consistently have held that the grant of such an order is likewise not appealable. See, e.g., San Francisco Real Estate Investors v. Real Estate Inv. Trust of Am., 692 F. 2d 814, 816 (1…