I’m not sure if I would agree with the decision or not, haven’t read it yet.
But in truth, haven’t death-bed type statements always been given a different status as evidence? I mean a death-bed statement is not necessarily considered hear-say, so it is sometimes admissible.
Just sayin.
Yes juries are likely to give them more credence. But the problem with death bed statements is that the defendant doesn’t get the chance to cross examine the witness, which arguably violates his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him.
Yeah..its called a dying declaration.
Dying declarations can be admitted into evidence but they usually have to have concrete evidence which backs them up, or else anyone could frame a person they didn’t like and not have to face them in court.
Dying declarations were mainly from criminals who were confessing to a crime(s), often to clear their conscience before they croaked. Can be tricky, but also accurate.
This is what Scalia might have had in mind in his dissent.
What Scalia was referring to was the clause in the Constitution that says a person can confront his accuser in a court of law. If the ‘accuser’ is dead, this cannot happen. It’s a tight rope to walk. If the accuser says, “John Smith shot me for no reason.” and then dies of the wound, how can the accused confront the accuser’s accusation? Also, if a person was of a mind to and wanted to frame someone else for his death, he could say the same thing, when actually another person was guilty.............