Davis v. Alaska

Supreme Court of the United States · 1974 · Evidence

415 U.S. 308 (1974)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceConfrontation ClauseCross-examinationWitness biasJuvenile adjudicationsSixth AmendmentFourteenth Amendmenteffective cross-examination

Facts

A key prosecution witness, Richard Green, identified petitioner as one of two men he saw near the location where a stolen safe was later found. At the time he made the identification and at the time of trial, Green was on juvenile probation after being adjudicated delinquent for burglarizing two cabins. Defense counsel sought to cross-examine Green about that status not to attack his general character for truthfulness, but to show possible bias, fear of police suspicion, or pressure affecting his identification. The trial court barred that inquiry under Alaska's juvenile confidentiality rules, though counsel was allowed only limited questioning about whether Green felt worried or suspected police might suspect him.

Issue

Whether the Confrontation Clause requires that a criminal defendant be allowed to cross-examine a crucial prosecution witness about the witness's juvenile probationary status to show possible bias, even though doing so conflicts with the state's policy of preserving the confidentiality of juvenile delinquency adjudications.

Rule

The Sixth Amendment right of confrontation secures the right of effective cross-examination, including inquiry into a witness's possible biases, prejudices, or ulterior motives. When a defendant seeks to reveal a prosecution witness's juvenile probation status to show possible bias or pressure affecting testimony, the state's policy of protecting the confidentiality of juvenile adjudications must yield if restricting the inquiry prevents effective cross-examination.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At an armed robbery trial in Cleveland, the prosecution's central eyewitness is 16-year-old Nolan Price, who identified Devin Cross after police found the getaway scooter near Nolan's apartment building. At the time Nolan first spoke with police and at trial, he was on juvenile probation for auto theft, but Ohio law generally keeps juvenile adjudications confidential.

Defense counsel seeks to ask Nolan about his probation status to argue he may have identified Devin quickly to deflect suspicion from himself or to avoid trouble with police. The judge allows only general questions such as whether Nolan felt nervous or biased, but bars any mention of probation. Which is the best answer?

Explanation. The majority held that the Sixth Amendment protects effective cross-examination aimed at exposing a witness's possible bias, prejudice, or ulterior motive. It is not enough to let counsel ask whether the witness is biased while forbidding the facts from which jurors could infer why. When the witness is a crucial prosecution witness and juvenile probation status could show vulnerability to police pressure or fear of suspicion, the state's confidentiality policy must yield.