Davis v. Alaska

The decision in Davis further stressed the importance of the Sixth Amendment right of criminal defendants to confront and cross-examine their accusers. The case has often been referred to in efforts to impeach the testimony of witnesses during cross examination. The important ruling in Davis was that discrediting a witness by revealing their motives is inherent to an individual's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. In Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986) the sanctity of the Confrontation Clause stressed in Davis was reaffirmed. The ruling in Davis also undermined the ability of states to protect the anonymity of juvenile offenders. In Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. the Court cited Davis (1979) ruling that a state cannot prohibit the "truthful publication of an alleged juvenile delinquent's name."

Davis has been also been a popular citation in child abuse and rape cases. In a Western New England Law Review article, Jason M. Price wrote: "Courts usually employ . . . Davis in interpreting rape shield statutes to allow sexual history evidence related to victim's motive to fabricate." In Olden v. Kentucky (1988) the Court employed Davis to allow the cross examination of a witness whose testimony had significant bearing on the truthfulness of the events. In this case, what appeared to be rape on the surface, turned out to be an extramarital affair upon cross examination.