Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals weighs whether trial court wrongly limited cross-examination about accuser's affair
Summary
At oral argument in State v. Daniel J. Dreardon, attorneys disputed whether the trial court's restrictions on cross-examining the accuser about an extramarital affair were preserved for appeal and whether exclusion violated the defendant's confrontation and due-process rights. The appellate court took the matter under advisement.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals heard oral argument over whether a trial court improperly limited cross-examination of an accuser about an extramarital affair in the case State of Tennessee v. Daniel J. Dreardon, an issue defense counsel argued deprived the defendant of his constitutional right to confront witnesses.
The dispute centers on whether trial counsel preserved a confrontation-clause claim and whether exclusion of evidence about the accuser's alleged affair — argued by the defense to show motive to fabricate in pending divorce and custody proceedings — constituted reversible error. The court took the case under advisement at the close of argument.
Appellant counsel Pat McNally told the three-judge panel that the contested evidence was offered to show motive to fabricate and that the trial judge's ruling effectively denied the defendant “the right to…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
