Replies

While I agree with Scalia that the majority's opinion is more twisted than a Hollywood party, I disagree with the general interpretation that a victim's statements before death are to be quashed in court simply because the suspected perpetrator succeeded in the murder and isn't available for confrontation.

I agree that there should be more weight given to the confrontation clause, but like everything in the law, the absence of common sense is the problem here. It is the continued pushing of the envelope to create ridged structure to human endeavors that is the problem, and more weight should be given to judicial and jury responses of ‘are you kidding me?’ to these ludicrous theories.

Common sense says you shouldn't benefit from a criminal act in your defense. That a victim's statement shouldn't be thrown out simply because they've been murdered.

a victim's statement shouldn't be thrown out simply because they've been murdered.

I can sympathize with your point of view, but I agree with Scalia here. I could be wrong , but I think the point that Scalia is making is that a statement of fact by an eyewitness must be subject to cross examination in a court of law, if the confrontation clause is to have any meaning within that law. The circumstances immediately surrounding that statement is what is important here. If a statement is made using proper investigative techniques, then those investigating officers, or more correctly, their interpretation, methodology, etc., can be cross examined. Without that, you have a statement that is virtually unchallenged, and that is a big problem, considering we are talking about a court of law.

I have no problem with the statement being used as a "police tool." which Scalia also makes clear in his remarks when he saidt: "his statement had little value except to ensure the arrest and eventual prosecution of Richard Bryant."

Eyewitness testimony can be notoriously incorrect, even when the witness has the best of intentions, and I see no reason why we should somehow relegate such statements as these to be inviolate with regard to objective truth.

That said, I'm a little surprised that Roberts and Alito chose a different path.

I disagree with the general interpretation that a victim's statements before death are to be quashed in court simply because the suspected perpetrator succeeded in the murder and isn't available for confrontation.

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.