Court won't allow statements by killer's victim

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.

Here’s something to consider along these lines. We are assuming that the phone call two weeks ago was valid. I have seen women claim their significant other wanted to kill them, when what they actually wanted was him out of the house. They were angry. They wanted to manipulate the courts, regarding custody. It’s a real mess, and I’m certain you’ve seen it too.

She may have in fact had some abrasions that made it look like he was being unreasonably rough with her. The fact is though, she may have been clobbering him, and he may have merely held her wrists so as not to receive more punches.

The admission of a recording from two weeks ago presupposes her version of the story was the gospel truth, when it may not have been at all.

For that reason, I do feel an obligation to offer up a devil’s advocate defense of the ‘supposed’ person who wanted her dead two weeks ago. The fact is, that claim may have been the furthest thing from the truth. And admitting this evidence could very easily influence a jury to jump to false conclusions.

You can put together a number of not so solid bits of evidence, that will look pretty impressive by the time they are all presented, this being one of them. They may in fact represent a complete railroading of the suspect too.

Look at it this way, you are married and find out from a person in town that your wife is having an affair. You go out to a bar. You come home and her lover has murdered her in your home and you are arrested and charged. a letter is found in her desk saying anything happens to her she knows you did it for the life insurance.

is that admissible evidence?

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.

Your statement is directly contrary to the Constitutional rights the Founders gave us.

There are plenty of governments worldwide which allow people to be convicted on the basis of hearsay - perhaps your blood pressure would improve if you lived in one of them instead. The cost of living is likely cheaper there as well - your pension would go further.

I think your comment cuts to the very heart of why we have the hearsay rule. Notably, today's decision is really just a follow up, in my mind, on the Court's decision a couple of terms ago that really cut the heart out of a lot of hearsay exceptions, at least in criminal trials. I'm not recalling the name of the decision right off hand, (starts with a C?) but it was a 2004 opinion also written by Justice Scalia. In that opinion, Scalia held that "testimonial" hearsay could only be admitted under a "firmly-rooted" hearsay exception, which would presumably be one that existed at common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Like today's decision, that opinion was based on the confrontation clause.

By the way, thinking more about yesterday's question, I think part of the question depends on whether the 911 call is considered "testimonial" evidence. Otherwise, I think it might get in regardless of whether it is hearsay or not. Seems like it could be either an excited utterance or a present sense impression.

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.