Giles v. California
E821199
Giles v. California is a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the Confrontation Clause by holding that a defendant forfeits the right to confront a witness only if the defendant intended to prevent that witness from testifying.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Giles v. California canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T9799019 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Giles v. California Context triple: [Crawford v. Washington, subsequentCaseInterpreting, Giles v. California]
-
A.
Rochin v. California
Rochin v. California is a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court case that held evidence obtained by methods that "shock the conscience," such as forcibly pumping a suspect’s stomach, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
B.
Griffin v. California
Griffin v. California is a landmark 1965 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that prosecutors and judges may not comment on a criminal defendant’s failure to testify, as this violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
-
C.
Edwards v. California
Edwards v. California is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a California law restricting the bringing of indigent persons into the state, holding that such limits on interstate movement violated the Commerce Clause.
-
D.
Bridges v. California
Bridges v. California is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly expanded First Amendment protections by limiting the power of courts to punish out-of-court publications as contempt.
-
E.
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Brandenburg v. Ohio is a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly strengthened free speech protections by establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for when advocacy of violence can be punished under the First Amendment.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Giles v. California Target entity description: Giles v. California is a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the Confrontation Clause by holding that a defendant forfeits the right to confront a witness only if the defendant intended to prevent that witness from testifying.
-
A.
Rochin v. California
Rochin v. California is a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court case that held evidence obtained by methods that "shock the conscience," such as forcibly pumping a suspect’s stomach, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
B.
Griffin v. California
Griffin v. California is a landmark 1965 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that prosecutors and judges may not comment on a criminal defendant’s failure to testify, as this violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
-
C.
Edwards v. California
Edwards v. California is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a California law restricting the bringing of indigent persons into the state, holding that such limits on interstate movement violated the Commerce Clause.
-
D.
Bridges v. California
Bridges v. California is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly expanded First Amendment protections by limiting the power of courts to punish out-of-court publications as contempt.
-
E.
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Brandenburg v. Ohio is a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly strengthened free speech protections by establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for when advocacy of violence can be punished under the First Amendment.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (47)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Confrontation Clause case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ criminal procedure case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional criminal procedure
ⓘ
criminal law ⓘ evidence law ⓘ |
| citation |
128 S. Ct. 2678
ⓘ
171 L. Ed. 2d 488 ⓘ 554 U.S. 353 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy | David H. Souter NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| concurrenceJoinedBy | Ruth Bader Ginsburg NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvision |
Confrontation Clause
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2008-06-25 ⓘ |
| dissentBy | Stephen G. Breyer NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| dissentJoinedBy |
Anthony M. Kennedy
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
David H. Souter NERFINISHED ⓘ John Paul Stevens NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 07-6053 ⓘ |
| effectOnLaw | limited the use of forfeiture by wrongdoing to situations involving intent to silence the witness ⓘ |
| holding |
A defendant forfeits the right to confront a witness only if the defendant intended to prevent the witness from testifying
ⓘ
Forfeiture by wrongdoing under the Confrontation Clause requires proof of intent to make the witness unavailable ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
California, United States
ⓘ
surface form:
State of California
United States of America ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| keyPrinciple |
equitable forfeiture applies only when the defendant engaged in wrongdoing designed to prevent testimony
ⓘ
historical practice at the time of the Sixth Amendment informs the scope of the Confrontation Clause ⓘ |
| languageOfDecision | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine
ⓘ
scope of the Confrontation Clause ⓘ |
| lowerCourtHolding | admitted prior testimonial statements of the deceased victim under a forfeiture-by-wrongdoing theory ⓘ |
| majorityJoinedBy |
Anthony M. Kennedy
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Clarence Thomas NERFINISHED ⓘ John G. Roberts Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ Samuel A. Alito Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Antonin Scalia NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| petitioner | Dwayne Giles NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| pluralityJoinedInPartBy |
David H. Souter
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Ruth Bader Ginsburg NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| relatedDoctrine |
Crawford v. Washington
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
testimonial hearsay ⓘ |
| respondent | California NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| stateCourt |
California Court of Appeal
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
California Supreme Court NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| SupremeCourtDisposition | reversed and remanded ⓘ |
| term | October Term 2007 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Giles v. California Description of subject: Giles v. California is a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the Confrontation Clause by holding that a defendant forfeits the right to confront a witness only if the defendant intended to prevent that witness from testifying.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.