October Term 2009 · Docket 07-11191

Does Virginia's witness statute violate the confrontation clause?

the sides that brought the case argue Virginia's law fails to guarantee witness presence. The state claims its statute satisfies constitutional requirements.

Official caption
Briscoe v. Virginia
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Friedman argued the stakes are high in this case.

    Mr. Friedman stated Virginia knows how to write a good notice-and-demand statute.

    Ms. Kruger argued a state safeguards confrontation rights by guaranteeing witness presence.

    Ms. Kruger stated the state must bring the analyst into court for cross-examination.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests whether a state statute satisfies the confrontation clause. The dispute centers on witness availability during trial.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 11, 2010.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want the Court to strike down the Virginia statute.

Virginia wants the Court to uphold its witness statute.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue the statute fails to guarantee witness presence.

Virginia argues its statute adequately safeguards confrontation rights.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Sotomayor asked why the state interpretation overrules Melendez-Diaz.

Justice Sotomayor asked if the state has an affirmative obligation to place witnesses on the stand.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the minimum state obligations for witness availability. It clarifies how states must structure their trial procedures. The outcome shapes future criminal prosecutions nationwide.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON