Posted on 02/28/2011 8:47:47 PM PST by Nachum
Sparing no arrow from his rhetorical quiver, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia fired away in dissent of Monday's 6-2 ruling that puts a Michigan man back on the hook for a drug murder and casts doubt on the reach of a hallmark opinion penned by the court's longest serving member.
Scalia called Monday's decision a "mistake," "patently incorrect," "incoherent" and a "gross distortion of the law."
Over time, all members of the high court have been subjected to Scalia's caustic writings. This time it was Justice Sonia Sotomayor who was responsible for articulating the court's position--joined by five of her colleagues--that the comments made by a victim hours before he died were admissible during the trial of his shooter.
The decision drew a fiery response from Scalia who said the ruling "distorts our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence and leaves it in a shambles. Instead of clarifying the law, the Court makes itself the obfuscator of last resort."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The court should simply have stated that the facts did not support the dying declaration elements and then it would never have created this new fluid definition of the confrontation clause that weighs the seriousness of the crime against the constitutional protections for the confrontation of witnesses.
The rule has always been that a dying declaration is one in which the declarant believes he is about to die. This case did not fit those facts.
A statement of fact implies that the person stating the “fact” is telling the absolute, unequivocal truth. Which is rare. Not because they are deliberately,telling a lie. But because if a violent confrontation happens and you are frightened what is remembered is not what really happened.
I am not making excuses for criminals. But people make mistakes. By the time cases get to trial it might be years after the crime was committed. The more publicity, the more they don’t want to fail in remembering their initial statement
And don’t forget political pressure.
The poor theater of Duke U anyone?
Yikes.. A dying declaration should be inadmissable, according to Scalia??
Let the court (and the jury) hear it. The prosecution can present it and the defense can impugn it.
I have never been a fan of “loophole” defense strategies which aim to get this or that “thrown out” on bullsh!+ technicalities. I have always felt that punishing victims for the transgressions of cops was a slimy way to operate a “justice” system. Punish the cop if he screws up. Spank him hard. Fire him, jail him, whatever.. Meanwhile, let all the evidence in, argue it, and let the jury decide. Show a little respect for the victim and his family.
I think Scalia is way off base here.
That's my view. I don't think the Confrontation Clause was intended to reward people for murdering potential witnesses. There have to be some limits like judges having to carefully explain to juries the limitations of such evidence but the facts of this case pretty much favor the majority opinion.
dun dun dun...that’s a great Law and Order episode there.
As much as I like Scalia, I have been disappointed in his logic on abortion and homosexual marriage. If he understood the Constitution and its inception and tie with Natural Law Theory, then there is no way he can condone either of those things.....they deny unalienable rights to the child and they deny natural law and God’s Law of design of the man and woman. It is bizarre that he wavers on these two items. Everything else is fine but the fundamental freedom of religion is entailed in homosexual marriage and the right to raise your children with your religious beliefs is being destroyed by the secular humanism forced onto children with taxpayer money. The DOE is unconstitutional also....I don’t know why the court is so lax on protecting the Constitution, unless they are Marxist plants also. I know Ginsberg and Kagan and Sotomeyer are for sure. We are doomed if all three branches are now Marxists.
Never liked liked the show myself. To predictable. Missed my point.
Hardly a dying declaration as it was made “hours” before the guy died. There has to be a belief of rather imminent death for that exception to apply.
Q: Who shot you. A: Homie Doggie who lives on 3rd street. *croak*
Common sense would indicate that if the only evidence of a crime were the statements of a victim who later expired, then there'd exist the possibility of reasonable doubt since it would be too easy to manufacturer or manipulate the statement in the absence of any other evidence. Common sense, however, is lacking in the criminal justice system as it stands today.
The hypothetical law school arguments used as a tool to educate students are now the foundation of twisted ruling after twisted ruling. If, at the end of the investigation, all you have is the statement that x did y, and nothing to back it up, then yes, you should be at a dead end. But how can it be considered in any form or fashion a 'justice' system if the victim's own words are excluded from the proceedings? To limit it to simply an investigative tool to direct the investigation defies the humanity that should be within the legal system. Justice is supposed to be blind, not heartless, and certainly still has ears to hear the words of a victim.
The possibility of manipulation and misrepresentation is mitigated by the foundation of other evidence. If police show up soon after at Homie Doggie's house and find gunpowder residue on the hands of Homie Doggie, he'd better have a receipt for his visit to the gun range where he just fired his arms. and it would be a good idea for the rangemaster to also be available to testify to the alibi.
I wholeheartedly disagree that a victim's representation in court ends with a successful murder. I think the original court was right in permitting the testimony, and don't think that defendant's rights were violated in being unable to cross examine the victim's testimony. I do not extend that to the officers themselves; absent a recording, their recollection can be called into question.
Very well written and very well reasoned. I still disagree with the majority ruling, though. And, as well written as your reply is, I note that you never correlated your reasoning with the Confrontation Clause. Without that, your reply has much appeal. When you factor that in however, the passionate may not always agree with the reasonable. If given a choice, and on this particular issue, i.e., the confrontation clause, I side with reason.
Once you have the basis wrong, all the logic you heap on top of the fallacious basis is incorrect. That's how people are so easily misled - they hear what sounds like logic without recognizing that the basis is wrong.
Let the court (and the jury) hear it. The prosecution can present it and the defense can impugn it.
Not the same - if you can't cross-examine the witness. What if he had a beef with the man he named as the perp ??? What if he was a proven liar ??? Can't do that without the opportunity to ask questions of the witness.
Other witnesses called to reput the declaration probably would not be able to enter it into testimony because it would be hearsay ...
Objectively speaking, he is not being logical at all, because his basis is contrary to Natural Law. When he sticks with Thomas, whose thinking is congruent with Natural Law, Scalia is always correct.
Right. Still hearsay.
Dying declaration: The jury heard it?
Direct testimony relating to the character and reliability of a dead witness is "hearsay"?
Okay, then that's another mess for our filthy "justice" system to clean up.
OK, taking off imaginary lawyer hat.
I’m fine with the conviction of the drug dealer. I don’t care if their “constitutional rights” are upheld, or not.
Or just a plain old ahole looking to have a last victim?
The Chief Justice, Roberts in this case, assigns another Justice to write the opinion of the court—that is, the majority’s opinion.
Soto-baby was fulfilling her assignment. Her “opinion” was reviewed and accepted by all those in the majority, as she speaks for them. If Thomas was in the majority, she writes for him.
The dissenters speak for themselves.
Where are either of those things in the Constitution?
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.