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.
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 ...