Skip to comments.
Court won't allow statements by killer's victim
Reuters ^
| June 25, 2008
Posted on 06/25/2008 12:42:43 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that a murder victim's prior statements cannot be used against her killer because it would violate a defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses who testify against him.
The high court's 6-3 ruling was a victory for Dwayne Giles, who had been convicted by a jury in Los Angeles for the 2002 shooting death of his former girlfriend, Brenda Avie. He was sentenced to at least 50 years in prison.
The court majority said the constitutional right to confront a witness applied even if the defendant was responsible for the witness being unavailable to testify at trial.
*****
The majority ruling, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, overturned a decision by a California court that upheld Giles' conviction. The Supreme Court said the victim's testimony should have been excluded.
Justices Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens and Anthony Kennedy dissented.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: confrontation; judiciary; scalia; scotus; supremecircus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
To: SECURE AMERICA
GREAT WORK MORONS. YOU JUST TOLD EVERY SCUMBAG THAT WAS THINKING OF KILLING THE WITNESSES AGAINST THEM TO GO AHEAD AND DO IT BECAUSE ITS A WIN WIN SITUATION FOR THEM.......Calm down.
You're completely wrong and you need to think it through.
21
posted on
06/25/2008 1:10:16 PM PDT
by
wideawake
(Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
To: Cicero
It looks like this decision was written by the conservative good guys.Yup. Written by Scalia, joined by Roberts, Thomas and Alito, and joined in part by Souter and Ginsburg. Dissent by Breyer, Kennedy and Stevens.
Im not sure what they were thinking.
Basically, they are saying that the defendant's constitutional right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him" means what it says.
To: TommyDale
Pardon me, but wouldnt the Killers victim be dead?Headline doesn't mesh with the statement....
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that a murder victim's prior statements
23
posted on
06/25/2008 1:11:12 PM PDT
by
Puppage
(You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
To: Lurking Libertarian
it’s a technicality, an unfortunate one but ..
24
posted on
06/25/2008 1:11:41 PM PDT
by
NormsRevenge
(Semper Fi ... Godspeed ... ICE toll-free tip hotline 1-866-DHS-2-ICE ... 9/11 .. Never FoRget!!!)
To: DoughtyOne; Red Badger
A recorded 911 call should be considered an exception to the hearsay rule because it is an “excited utterance.”
25
posted on
06/25/2008 1:12:31 PM PDT
by
wideawake
(Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
To: frogjerk
But what’s the diffrence? Both the recorded voice and the cop’s interview notes are records of what the witness said when she was alive.
26
posted on
06/25/2008 1:12:59 PM PDT
by
swain_forkbeard
(Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
To: Blue Turtle; Always Right
From the article:
Justices Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens and Anthony Kennedy dissented.
I know everyone else doesn't agree with this, but on a matter of principle, this was the right opinion for all the right reasons.
Specifically, from the article again:
because it would violate a defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses who testify against him.
Did the perp deserve to die?
More than likely, yes!
Should his constitional rights be violated in the process?
No.
If you were brought to trial and accused of a crime (murder or otherwise), and were innocent, would you want the Prosecution to get away with actions like this?
27
posted on
06/25/2008 1:13:50 PM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(GOP: If you reward bad behavior all you get is more bad behavior.)
To: swain_forkbeard; wideawake
But whats the diffrence? Both the recorded voice and the cops interview notes are records of what the witness said when she was alive. See post #25
28
posted on
06/25/2008 1:16:13 PM PDT
by
frogjerk
(Barry Hussein is Neville Chamberlain)
To: wideawake
A recorded 911 call should be considered an exception to the hearsay rule because it is an excited utterance."
Okay. I want to push this comment some. Lets see what you think.
Two weeks prior to her death, a victim calls 911 to state that her boyfriend is trying to kill her. The police arrive, sure enough, there are signs of physical abuse, and they yank him out of the house.
Is that 911 call admisable as evidence when she is killed two weeks later, and her boyfriend is the supsect? My take is no.
29
posted on
06/25/2008 1:25:43 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
( I say no to the Hillary Clinton wing of the Republican party. Not now or ever, John McCain...)
To: DoughtyOne
No, it is not admissable - unless he is being prosecuted not for her murder but for the beating that took place on the day of the 911 call.
Say, for example, he was being prosecuted solely for assaulting her and while the prosecution was preparing to go to trial she was hit by a city bus and killed in front of witnesses.
The prosecution would not have a complaining witness, but they would have her excited utterance on the 911 tape.
30
posted on
06/25/2008 1:40:46 PM PDT
by
wideawake
(Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
To: wideawake
Thanks for the response. I think we’re in agreement.
I will say that the bus incident wasn’t what I was thinking of. I was thinking more along the lines of her being found dead in the same apartment where the police responded weeks earlier.
31
posted on
06/25/2008 1:47:41 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
( I say no to the Hillary Clinton wing of the Republican party. Not now or ever, John McCain...)
To: DoughtyOne
Then no.
32
posted on
06/25/2008 1:55:10 PM PDT
by
wideawake
(Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
To: Blue Turtle
Everyone on this thread is overthinking this....you know the truth...its BS, the SC ruling has protected terrorists, child rapists, now killers. Were going down... And tomorrow, when we lose our guns, we won't be able to fire back.
To: BlazingArizona
Tomorrow could be hugh , I am series .
34
posted on
06/25/2008 2:21:32 PM PDT
by
kbennkc
(For those who have fought for it , freedom has a flavor the protected will never know)
To: wideawake
GREAT WORK MORONS. YOU JUST TOLD EVERY SCUMBAG THAT WAS THINKING OF KILLING THE WITNESSES AGAINST THEM TO GO AHEAD AND DO IT BECAUSE ITS A WIN WIN SITUATION FOR THEM.......
Calm down.
You’re completely wrong and you need to think it through.
AS A FORMER POLICE OFFICER AND CORRECTIONS OFFICER WHO HAS HAD TO DEAL WITH MUDERERS AND OTHER ASSORTED SCUMBAGS THROUGHOUT MY CAREER AND HAVE SEEN THEM THINK IT THROUGH, I STAND BY MY STATEMENT.
To: SECURE AMERICA
36
posted on
06/25/2008 2:27:12 PM PDT
by
kbennkc
(For those who have fought for it , freedom has a flavor the protected will never know)
To: Red Badger; DoughtyOne; frogjerk
a recorded 911 call from a victim, who is now dead, screaming that the attacker is so-and-so is now inadmissible in court It IS hearsay, but it is nevertheless admissible under any one of a number of exceptions. I don't believe today's ruling would change that.
To: DoughtyOne; wideawake
Is that 911 call admisable as evidence when she is killed two weeks later Wide, I think this is a tougher call than your initial take. If I'm the state, I think my argument is that it's not hearsay, because I'm not admitting the tape as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted--that boyfriend was trying to kill her at that moment--but perhaps that boyfriend has a propensity towards violence or to show that girlfriend feared for her life from boyfriend.
I think there are 404 problems with either of the two above approaches, but I think there's room to be creative here.
To: wideawake
Couldn't the prior phone call be used as evidence of violent intent in the past and the basis for a ‘motive’? I plead ignorance about the legal technicalities here.
39
posted on
06/25/2008 3:13:37 PM PDT
by
Borges
To: Publius Valerius
Thank you. That conclusion seems reasonable to me as well.
40
posted on
06/25/2008 4:00:39 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
( I say no to the Hillary Clinton wing of the Republican party. Not now or ever, John McCain...)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson