Rock v. Arkansas Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained скачать в хорошем качестве

Rock v. Arkansas Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Rock v. Arkansas | 483 U.S. 44 (1987) It’s well known that criminal defendants have the constitutional right not to testify. But is the converse true? Do they have a constitutional right to testify? The United States Supreme Court addressed this issue in Rock versus Arkansas. Vickie Rock fatally shot her husband, Frank, in their home. Frank had been abusive and controlling to the point of telling Rock what she could eat. When police officers arrived, Rock told them that Frank had choked her and thrown her against the wall shortly before she responded by retrieving a pistol in the home. She said that, after she picked up the gun, Frank hit her again, causing the gun to go off accidentally. Rock was charged with manslaughter in state court. Rock told her defense counsel that she couldn’t remember all the details of the shooting. Counsel arranged for Rock to see a psychologist trained in hypnosis in the hope of refreshing Rock’s recollection. Dr. Bettye Back twice hypnotized Rock and sought to elicit details about the shooting. Both sessions were recorded. According to Back, the hypnosis helped Rock remember that, when her husband hit her after she’d retrieved the gun, she had her thumb on the hammer but hadn’t yet put her finger on the trigger. Rock further remembered that the pistol discharged when Frank grabbed her arm. Defense counsel had a firearms expert examine the pistol, which revealed a defect that made the gun prone to discharge, when hit, without anyone pulling the trigger. After the prosecutor discovered Rock’s hypnosis, he moved to prevent Rock from testifying at trial. The trial court ruled that Rock’s hypnotically refreshed testimony would be excluded. The court found that, although Dr. Back didn’t ask leading questions of Rock during hypnosis, hypnotically refreshed testimony was per se inadmissible under state law. Rock was limited to testifying about what she told Dr. Back before being hypnotized. At Rock’s jury trial, the defense called the firearms expert to testify but limited Rock’s testimony about the shooting to the limited information in the doctor’s notes. The jury convicted Rock. On appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed her conviction. Rock successfully petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review her case. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/rock-v-... The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/rock-v-... Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Facebook ►   / quimbeedotcom   Twitter ►   / quimbeedotcom   #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries