Talk:Confrontation Clause

Untitled
This article should be deleted and merged into the existing subtopic on the sixth amendment's article. Rlove (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This amendment may have originally been intended to preserve the right to challenge witnesses to a duel as an alternative to court trial. However, this was never legally tested in the context of the time and society which passed the amendment. Within ever changing social rules dueling quickly incorporated a gentlemen's right to refuse - though that was often taken as an admission of guilt. The accused was often acquitted in early disputed trials based on public knowledge of such refusals to duel -- thus it was to the accused advantage to let refusals to duel stand. Dueling quickly lost favor as too aristocratic in the early 1800s and was eventually prohibited as if not entitled under the amended Constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.124.142 (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Confrontation Clause. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150603192937/http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4876568856193042363&q=zanders+v+united+states+confrontation+clause&hl=en&as_sdt=20004 to http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4876568856193042363&q=zanders+v+united+states+confrontation+clause&hl=en&as_sdt=20004

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Overview of different countries
Currently it is very US specific. I would like to know how this is handled in other countries. Thanks, Bernburgerin (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Current controversy regarding impeachment and the right to meet an accuser
There is currently a loud debate at the national level regarding whether or not President Trump has a constitutional right to meet his accuser, the whistleblower who remains anonymous. https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/06/politics/sixth-amendment-require-whistle-blower-to-face-donald-trump-fact-check/index.html https://www.npr.org/2019/10/01/766176669/legal-experts-say-the-right-to-confront-accusers-does-not-apply-to-impeachment Shouldn't this article make some reference to this? I came here looking for information and didn't find much to help me. Marcusreese (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , the article should not make reference to this as Trump's claims at the time were related to impeachment proceedings and the Confrontation Clause explicitly references the words "in all criminal prosecutions." Muttnik  talk 23:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)