Shanker Patel v. California

Where in sixteen States, including California, whence this present case arises, the law requires corroboration of an accomplice’s testimony to sustain a conviction, and When no physical evidence connects a defendant to the crime and the evidence of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is supplied solely by circumstantial evidence, by the trial testimony of an accomplice, and by the out-of-court statements made by another accomplice, and When the defendant requests that the trial court give to the jury a cautionary instruction about the care with which the jury should face accomplice corroboration, THE QUESTION HERE PRESENTED IS: Whether a trial court violates the jury trial guarantees of the Sixth Amendment and U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 3 by refusing to grant a defendant’s request that the court instruct the jury that the evidence of accomplices ought to be received with suspicion and with the very greatest care and caution and ought not to be passed upon by the jury under the same rules governing other and apparently credible witnesses. See, e.g., Crawford v. United States, 212 U.S. 183, 204 (1909).