Al Smith was accused of stealing a television set and arrested. The police told Al that witnesses saw him take the television set. During his court trial,
the witnesses are not revealed to the defendant. What should happen, according to the principle of due process and the U.S. Constitution?
The case will be dismissed because Al has a right to be confronted by the witnesses against him.
The case will be dismissed because Al has a right to a speedy and public trial.
The case will be continued because Al will have a lawyer appointed to represent him.
The case will be continued because Al has a right to be informed of the accusation against him.
The case will be dismissed because Al has a right to be confronted by the witnesses against him.
And you think ... ?
Read Bill of RIGHTS
In high school, one hears "...she said that I said that he said that momma said ..."
That is not evidence.
According to the principle of due process and the U.S. Constitution, if Al Smith is accused of stealing a television set and arrested, he has the right to be confronted by the witnesses against him. Therefore, the case should be dismissed if the witnesses are not revealed to the defendant.
To understand this, we can refer to the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which grants the defendant the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." This means that Al Smith has the right to know who the witnesses are and to have an opportunity to question them and challenge their testimony. By withholding the witnesses' identities, the prosecution would be violating Al's right to due process and a fair trial.
Therefore, out of the given options, the correct answer is: The case will be dismissed because Al has the right to be confronted by the witnesses against him.