6Th Amendment reaffirmed

US Supreme Court | Mar 8,2004 | US Supreme Court

[djf]

The Supreme Court, in a decision Monday, Crawford V. Washington, has re-affirmed the accused rights in a criminal trial to be confronted by his accuser. The court had, in recent years, after the Ohio V. Roberts decision, held that in certain circumstances, hearsay evidence could be deemed credible enough to be noticed by the court and used against the defendent. In a blistering rebuttal to this philosophy by Scalia the court held Monday that this does not conform to the original intent of the founders, and the right to be confronted in court by ALL the witnesses against a defendent is inviolable.

The decision is available only in a pdf slip opinion now, case 02-9410, Argued Nov 10, 2003, decided Mar 8, 2004.

[Teacher317]

How sad that the Supreme Court, charged with upholding the Constitution, should make headlines by changing course and finally starting to do so.

(By the way, sometimes one cannot be confronted by ALL hearsay witnesses... 'dying declarations' fall under that heading, too!)

[Amelia]

The 10th is a lost cause, unfortunately. It is taken as a mere statement of fact, and not as a limitation on government.

It occured to me the other day that the "State of the Union" address is currently a misnomer. We're no longer a union of separate states, but a nation.

[steveegg]

What's even more odd is that everyone except the mushy middle joined in upholding the Constitution (Rehnquist and O'Connor concurred with the specific result, not the reasoning, and most certainly not the wholesale disallowing of unchallenged hearsay).

Methinks "dying declarations" would fall under the time-honored "unavailable" exception.

[steveegg]

While all 9 justices found that SCOTWASH got the wrong result, the Mushy Middle (Rehnquist and O'Connor) spent almost all their time defending the practice of allowing unchallenged hearsay.

[Enterprise]

The simple answer is yes. But in light of the ruling, I want to know if she is now required to testify, and if she doesn't, will all of the evidence have to be suppressed since it was obtained in violation of the privileged information between man and wife? You could be right of course, but it appears that the court has now told prosecutors that business cannot be done as usual in certain cases like domestic violence.

[mvpel]

What's the difference between ordinary hearsay and "testimonial hearsay?"

[Enterprise]

As I understand it, "testimonial hearsay" would be something you might see in a preliminary hearing where the lead detective would tell what the victim said, without the victim having to testify. For the purposes of a preliminary hearing, the testimony would be admitted. Ordinary hearsay might be something that would happen at trial if someone said "Joe said such and such" and Joe's statement hadn't yet been presented. For trial purposes, it would be objected to and not allowed. Sorry, I'm not a lawyer, and a lawyer could give much better examples.

[adam_az]

Scalia calls it "unpardonable vice of the Roberts decision"...

I love when he talks dirty. ;) Scalia is one of the good guys.

[djf]

If Renquhist went, I think Scalia would make a great Chief justice. He and Thomas are the sharpest of the lot.

[unixfox]

Don't forget the 4th.

[WOSG]

In your case, the cops testify to the statements made by 3rd parties - in court.

JMHO.

[WOSG]

"Lawful courts obey our Constitution rather than undermine it. Amen, after all it is our constitution that created the function of our courts in the first place."

Right, dittos.

The courts are constructs of the Constitution and our laws, the Constitution and law are not constructs of the courts.

[dirtboy]

No, but you have to admit, Scalia kicks serious ass.

When it comes to federalist concepts, yes. When it comes to enforcing the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments, no.

[dirtboy]

BTW, although the DARPA TIA (Total Information Awareness) project, that was passed under the HSA

No, it was not. Safire made this claim but HSA mentions neither DARPA or TIA.

[EGPWS]

The courts are constructs of the Constitution and our laws, the Constitution and law are not constructs of the courts.

Yes! Thus the idea of the constitution being "living and breathing" as conveyed by extreme liberal philosophy is ludicrous and can be seen as anti-American with it's progressive stance to change the foundation of what has brought us to be the greatest country on earth.

After all, when philosophical desperation puts focus on a change of the Constitution through a function of the Constitution, (I.E. the courts) it shows a mindset of some that the Constitution is a dogma that exists for our bidding and not a dogma of direction.

It can be seen as synonymous with religion and the Bible, where as some religions have altered their religious philosophy away from the Bible to cater to the masses wants rather than being a foundation of guidance for the masses, thus rendering the ideals of religious following useless.

[PeaceBeWithYou]

Here's a good tool to bookmark.

Adobe online PDF to HTML text conversion tool

Just copy and paste the URL into the box and hit the button.

[cashposition]

HoW are you these days, Alex!

Ray STOCKHRSE
CASHPOSITION

[SunkenCiv]

The country will be served well to obtain similar-minded folks on the Supreme Court bench.

It won't be long now.

---

see Civ's favorites

---

[Action-America]

No, it was not. Safire made this claim but HSA mentions neither DARPA or TIA.

Actually, the Homeland Fatherland Security Act only defined the parameters of the massive data mining system that raised the ire of so many constitutionalists across the country that it had to be moved and hidden. It was convicted felon, John Poindexter, who upon being appointed, by Dubya, to oversee that project, eventually gave it the name "Total Information Awareness" (TIA). Sure, that wasn't what it was called in the legislation. But, that is the name that was given to that legislation's unholy child.

Because it was to be a Defense Department project, DARPA was the logical place for such a high tech program, within the Defense Department. Since the legislation did not directly specify DARPA as the home to what was to become the TIA project, Dubya and his RINO cronies simply moved the whole project (convicted felon management and all) from DARPA to ARDA, to make it appear that they were scrapping the project, as the public had demanded.

Because of Dubya, we will probably win the battle, by destroying Al-Qaeda, as a fighting force, but lose the war. Granted, the terrorists destroyed some buildings and killed a few thousand Americans and granted that Al-Qaeda will eventually be wiped out, as a result of Dubya's actions overseas. But since the terrorists have proven that they are willing to die, to further their cause, they must be laughing with glee, at how ultimately successful were their 2001 attacks and I'm not talking about physical destruction or deaths. Even as they hide in their caves, awaiting their fate, they must certainly be content in the knowledge that they have probably won, since under the guise of patriotism and fighting terrorism, Dubya has set into motion the wheels that will more thoroughly destroy the United States, than anything they could have ever achieved on their own, since he is systematically dismantling the one thing they could never destroy on their own - the Constitution.

Such loss of rights and liberty, under the guise of public safety, has been predicted by pundits for years, though I know of nobody who thought that it would happen under a Republican administration. Of course, it could be said that it didn't happen under a Republican administration, since Dubya is a Republican In Name Only.

 

[Sir_Ed]

What sort of cases in oregon were overturned?

Was it in today's Oregonian?

Ed