California v. Tyberg

observing that “[t]he hazard of error is greatly lessened with respect to prior inconsistent written statements signed by the declarant” | “allowing the substantive use of prior inconsistent statements, signed by the declarant, who has personal knowledge of facts stated, when the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination” | "There is no distinction between the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and Art. 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights....” | " There is no distinction between the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and Art. 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights...." | no distinction between right guaranteed under federal constitution and the right to counsel ensured by Article 21 | “There is no distinction between the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and Art. 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights....” | improper suggestion regarding reasonable doubt and therefore review of circumstantial evidence instruction in isolation where principal issue is intent | “There is no distinction between the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and Art. 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights....” | “There is no distinction between the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and Art. 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights....” | “prior written inconsistent statements, signed by the declarant, who has personal knowledge of the facts stated, when the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination” are admissible as substantive evidence | with requirement that declarant have personal knowledge of the facts stated | prior inconsistent statements admissible for substantive purposes if adequate indicia of reliability present