# Douglas v. Alabama > Supreme Court of the United States · April 5, 1965 · 380 U.S. 415 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9422993 ## Case - **Full name:** Douglas v. Alabama - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** April 5, 1965 - **Citations:** 380 U.S. 415; 85 S. Ct. 1074; 13 L. Ed. 2d 934; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1482 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Harlan - **Judges:** Brennan, Harlan, Stewart - **Cited by:** 1,595 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9422993 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights were improperly denied by allowing the prosecutor to read, “under the guise of cross-examination to refresh [the witness’s] recollection” a statement from a witness who persisted in relying on self-incrimination grounds to avoid ans… - holding that “[a]lthough the Solicitor’s reading of [the witness’s] alleged statement, and [the witness’s] refusals to answer, were not technically testimony, the Solicitor’s reading may well have been the equivalent in the jury’s mind of testimony that [the witness] in fact m… - holding that “[although the Solicitor’s reading of [the witness’s] alleged statement, and [the witness’s] refusals to answer, were not technically testimony, the Solicitor’s reading may well have been the equivalent in the jury’s mind of testimony that[the witness] in fact mad… - holding that it was a violation of a defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause when the co-defendant was called to the stand and refused to respond and the prosecutor then treated the co-defendant as a hostile witness and read his confession, which implicated the defen… - holding that when a prosecution witness invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege, he “could not be cross-examined on a statement imputed to but not admitted by him,” and thus defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights were violated by the prosecution’s exposure of the statement to t… ## Opinion text Mr. Justice Harlan, concurring in the result. For reasons stated in the opinion of the Court, I agree that petitioner was denied a right of “confrontation” embodied in the concept of ordered liberty. I concur in the judgment of reversal on the premises stated in my opinion concurring in the result in Pointer v. Texas, ante, p. 408, decided today. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9422993. Public record. Not legal advice.