People v. Cambre
California Court of Appeal
B168754, B171836, 2004 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7369 (2004)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Damon Del Cambre (defendant) was charged with robbing a bank. Police interviewed Thomas Owens, who admitted to being part of the robbery. Owens’s statements inculpated Cambre. At trial, the prosecution (plaintiff) called Owens as a witness. Owens answered every question, even those with obvious answers, by stating that he did not recall. As a result, the trial court permitted the prosecution to introduce Owens’s interview answers as prior inconsistent statements. Cambre’s attorney chose not to cross-examine Owens. Cambre was convicted, and he appealed, claiming that the introduction of Owens’s out-of-court interview answers, combined with the lack of cross-examination of Owens, violated Cambre’s rights under the Confrontation Clause.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Zelon, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.