Kansas v. Ventris, 556 U.S. 586 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a statement collected in violation of the Sixth Amendment may be admissible to impeach inconsistent testimony at trial.[1][2]
| Kansas v. Ventris | |
|---|---|
| Decided April 29, 2009 | |
| Full case name | Kansas v. Ventris |
| Citations | 556 U.S. 586 (more) |
| Holding | |
| A statement collected in violation of the Sixth Amendment may be admissible to impeach inconsistent testimony at trial. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Scalia |
| Dissent | Stevens, joined by Ginsburg |
Background
editDonnie Ray Ventris and Rhonda Theel were charged with murder and other crimes. Prior to trial, an informant planted in Ventris's cell heard him admit to shooting and robbing the victim, but Ventris testified at trial that Theel committed the crimes. When the State sought to call the informant to testify to his contradictory statement, Ventris objected. The State conceded that Ventris's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had likely been violated, meaning it was not admissible for the State's case-in-chief. However, the State argued that the statement was admissible for impeachment purposes. The trial court allowed the testimony. The jury convicted Ventris of aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery. Reversing, the Kansas Supreme Court held that the informant's statements were not admissible for any reason, including impeachment.
Opinion of the court
editThis section needs expansion. You can help by adding missing information. (September 2025) |
The Supreme Court issued an opinion on April 29, 2009.[1]
Later developments
editThis section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (September 2025) |
References
editExternal links
edit- Text of Kansas v. Ventris, 556 U.S. 586 (2009) is available from: Internet Archive (docket files) Justia
This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain.