The Associated Press

What will the Supreme Court decide?

Featured Topic | Posted 2 years 18 weeks ago

Can the courts allow testimony from murder victims?

The Sixth Amendment gives criminal defendants the right to cross-examine witnesses against them. But what if the crime is murder -- and the witness is the murder victim? The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments over whether juries should hear testimony of dead witnesses in such cases.

The case involves Dwayne Giles, who was convicted of  the 2002 murder of his girlfriend in Los Angeles. Giles says his Sixth Amendment rights were violated because because a police officer had testified at his trial that the murder victim, Brenda Avie, had said Giles threatened to kill her. But prosecutors said Giles had forfeited his right by killing the witness, and that the law recognizes "that no one may profit from wrongdoing."

Should testimony be allowed when there's no chance of cross-examination? How should the court decide?

Read More

Ben likes: Confronting the 'confrontation clause'

Richard Friedman/Volokh Conspiracy

In Crawford v. Washington (2004), the Supreme Court dramatically changed its conception of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. The effects on criminal prosecutions will likely be very significant. Justice Scalia's opinion for seven justices in Crawford narrows the focus of the Confrontation Clause to statements that are considered "testimonial," but as to these the demand of the Clause is unequivocal: The statement cannot be admitted against an accused, no matter how reliable a court might consider it to be, unless the defendant has had an opportunity to examine the maker of the statement.

Prosecutors afraid that witnesses who have made favorable statements may not be available to testify at trial should no longer prepare to argue that the statements are reliable. Instead, they should arrange an early opportunity for the defendant to cross-examine.

For example, what are the consequences with respect to the admissibility of statements made in 911 calls, some of which seem more designed to create evidence than to secure immediate assistance? Should routine laboratory reports made in contemplation of prosecution be inadmissible if the technician does not testify? Shall statements to private persons, made in circumstances suggesting likely transmittal to the authorities, be considered testimonial? In what circumstances should a court find that an accused has forfeited the confrontation right, as by killing or intimidating the witness? The last two questions are particularly significant with respect to children, as are others: Shall some child declarants be considered at too early a stage of development, either cognitively or morally, to be considered witnesses?

Read More

Joel likes: The confrontation clause

Boalt Hall

Nancy Lemon, DVP director, co-wrote an amici curiae brief submitted on March 26, and the Court will hear oral arguments on April 22.

"We argue that the Constitution does not protect defendants from the consequences of their own wrongful acts,” says Lemon, who has specialized in domestic violence issues since graduating from Boalt in 1980. "If a defendant's willful conduct causes the witness's unavailability he forfeits his confrontation right, making prior statements by the witness admissible.”

After Giles appealed, Lemon and Timna Sites '06 co-wrote an amicus curiae brief to the California Supreme Court, which affirmed the decision and said Giles waived his confrontation right by directly causing Avie's absence. The court invoked the "Rule of Forfeiture," which holds that people forfeit their right to confront a witness if their wrongful actions prevented that witness from testifying. As a result, hearsay testimony from the absent witness can be admissible at trial.

The hope among domestic violence groups is that the Court agreed to hear Giles to clarify that the Sixth Amendment does not exclude victim testimony if witness unavailability was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions.

"For years we've been urging prosecutors to treat domestic violence cases like homicide cases and to assume they won't have a victim to testify,” Lemon says. "Prosecutors were making good progress on how to use the Rule of Forfeiture, and I fear we'll have fewer prosecutions if Giles is reversed. It's a crucial decision for domestic violence victims and also for abused children who often are afraid to testify in

Read More

Where do you stand on this issue?

Click on the graph to cast your vote.
average
vote
your vote
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • Magnoliacom
  • Newsvine
  • Furl
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Technorati
  • Icerocket

Thoughts

LouisVuittonMonogramMiroir

Submitted on August 20th, 2010 by lehua333

High efficiency and performance of any Louis Vuitton 2009 Collection, Louis Vuitton 2010 Collection and Louis Vuitton Black Murakami professional career may be a competition, need Louis Vuitton Clutches to keep access to services such as Louis Vuitton Cruise professional athletes to promote the Louis Vuitton Damier local view. The reason is that Louis Vuitton Damier Azur athletes who are popular and Louis Vuitton Damier Canvas provide a good performance Louis Vuitton Damier Geant have been high in the Louis Vuitton Denim popularity in the mass Louis Vuitton Epi Leather scale, which means that a lot of Louis Vuitton Kalahari money the sponsors and organizers. louis vuitton speedy, clubs, sponsors, organizers and Louis Vuitton Luggage all the parties concerned want Louis Vuitton Mahina to have their own camp in the best Louis Vuitton Men's collection professional athletes, they would be willing Louis Vuitton Mini Lin Croisette to pay the cost. However, even in Louis Vuitton Monogram these less visible sports Louis Vuitton Monogram Canvas venues have good income and Louis Vuitton Monogram Denim higher compared to the market Louis Vuitton Monogram Groom dedicated professionals in the Louis Vuitton Monogram Idylle maximum income. Of course Louis Vuitton Monogram Mini Lin there is no uniform pay and Louis Vuitton Monogram Miroir professional athletes, they have a very Louis Vuitton Monogram Multicolore different type of sports, athletes Louis Vuitton Monogram Perforated body, and the games or Louis Vuitton Monogram Suede sports, is to play country. However, employment opportunities, waiting Louis Vuitton Monogram Vernis for a successful professional athletes, at least in Louis Vuitton Monogram Watercolor this period, when they are superior Louis Vuitton Nomade Leather in sports is huge, but to catch up with them years Louis Vuitton Seasonal of age, the legal restrictions on the Louis Vuitton Sobe natural. These participants can Louis Vuitton Stephen Sprouse have easy access to anywhere Louis Vuitton Suhali Leather in the world. The trailer is rather Louis Vuitton Surya one of choice for Australian residents. Africa Louis Vuitton Taiga has a wide range of risk areas. Brisbane is Louis Vuitton Utah known camping trailer camping tent where Louis Vuitton Utah Leather most admire. While camping is also proposed to consider hiring the trailer, because it will Louis Vuitton White Murakami give you a different types of tents and related features of the idea.

dsaf

Submitted on June 15th, 2009 by samenzhen

As the Leader in china wholesale, Tradetang offer the best wholesale products , New products and Cheap Products. You can find Input Devices ,Laptop Parts Accessories ,Laptops, Notebooks ,Monitors Projectors and Networking. Well begun is the half done. Please choose our platform as you search the products to shorten your way to the success and we believe tradetang is your one-stop solution to purchasing China wholesale products online.

Rule of Forfeiture

Submitted on April 23rd, 2008 by chief28.ret

It seems to me that the Rule of Forfeiture, in this circumstance and in many involving abuse, is more appropriate and protects the rights of the victim. I understand the rights of the accused can also be trampled if not carefully weighed.

But an interesting part of the red article states: "The statement cannot be admitted against an accused, no matter how reliable a court might consider it to be..." This just doesn't seem right. Shouldn't the courts be able to determine the reliability of a statement?

My hope would be that the Supreme Court rules to not exclude victim testimony if witness unavailability was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions. The alternative seems quite risky and loaded with potential unintended consequences.

Re: Murder victim testimony

Submitted on April 23rd, 2008 by Ben

Read the story, then crack wise. The idea is there might be statements -- recorded or written word -- the prosecution could use from the victim that could be useful to the case. The controversy is genuine, which is why the Supreme Court took the case.

Murder victim testimony???

Submitted on April 23rd, 2008 by Anonymous

Ok, I'm going to be a smart ass. How does a murder victim testify? They're dead!

Join the Debate

Start your own blog, comment on topics, and let your voice be heard. Start your free account now!

User login

login