Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

6Th Amendment reaffirmed
US Supreme Court | Mar 8,2004 | US Supreme Court

Posted on 03/12/2004 8:05:46 PM PST by djf

The Supreme Court, in a decision Monday, Crawford V. Washington, has re-affirmed the accused rights in a criminal trial to be confronted by his accuser. The court had, in recent years, after the Ohio V. Roberts decision, held that in certain circumstances, hearsay evidence could be deemed credible enough to be noticed by the court and used against the defendent. In a blistering rebuttal to this philosophy by Scalia the court held Monday that this does not conform to the original intent of the founders, and the right to be confronted in court by ALL the witnesses against a defendent is inviolable.

The decision is available only in a pdf slip opinion now, case 02-9410, Argued Nov 10, 2003, decided Mar 8, 2004.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: confrontation; law; prosecutuin; rights; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

1 posted on 03/12/2004 8:05:47 PM PST by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: djf
does that mean that a traffic camera must come into court to testify against you?
2 posted on 03/12/2004 8:13:09 PM PST by Forrestfire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Forrestfire
No, but you have to admit, Scalia kicks serious ass.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

3 posted on 03/12/2004 8:14:34 PM PST by section9 (Major Motoko Kusanagi says, "John Kerry: all John F., no Kennedy..." Click on my pic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: djf
view in html here.
4 posted on 03/12/2004 8:15:47 PM PST by glock rocks (molon labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glock rocks
Thanks. The only copy I found yet was PDF...

Scalia calls it "unpardonable vice of the Roberts decision"... I luv that guy!
5 posted on 03/12/2004 8:19:25 PM PST by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: djf
Interesting. They found an amendment they could "reafffirm".
6 posted on 03/12/2004 8:22:08 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf
In a blistering rebuttal to this philosophy by Scalia

You da man!

7 posted on 03/12/2004 8:23:46 PM PST by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf
Awesome. Now if we could only reaffirm the 1st, 2nd, and 10th I'd be a much happier person.

Qwinn
8 posted on 03/12/2004 8:26:51 PM PST by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf
Oh no, Scalia mentioned the Founders. That should get the Left all in a knot, LOL.
9 posted on 03/12/2004 8:28:07 PM PST by Moonman62
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: section9
... you have to admit, Scalia kicks serious ass.

So does Rehnquist, and coming along smartly, Thomas. The country will be served well to obtain similar-minded folks on the Supreme Court bench.

10 posted on 03/12/2004 8:28:31 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: djf
There must be some mistake. The supreme Court can't possibly put together a majority to affirm a fundamental right the founders would recognise. I'll have to read this later. I'm suprised LII hasn't delivered this to my inbox yet.
11 posted on 03/12/2004 8:29:53 PM PST by zeugma (The Great Experiment is over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
The 10th is a lost cause, unfortunately. It is taken as a mere statement of fact, and not as a limitation on government. The statement of fact is that "In a three-section rights-pie made of states-rights, federal-rights and personal-rights, each part of the pie can be assigned to one of the three sections."
12 posted on 03/12/2004 8:37:05 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
it's up on LII.. link on #4
13 posted on 03/12/2004 8:37:19 PM PST by glock rocks (molon labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan; Federalist 78; Squantos; archy
ping
14 posted on 03/12/2004 8:37:23 PM PST by B4Ranch (Don't be so open-minded your brains fall out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf
"Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to dispensing with jury trial because a defendant is obviously guilty. This is not what the Sixth Amendment prescribes."
15 posted on 03/12/2004 8:39:43 PM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
Interesting. They found an amendment they could "reafffirm".

Not only that, they did it without a single dissent. All 9 justices agreed that the Supreme Court of the state of Washington got it wrong.

16 posted on 03/12/2004 8:46:29 PM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

.
17 posted on 03/12/2004 9:08:16 PM PST by StriperSniper (Manuel Miranda - Whistleblower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf
The Clause’s primary object is testimonial hearsay, and interrogations by law enforcement officers fall squarely within that class.
Second, the Framers would not have allowed admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.

So does this also include those various "informants" of law enforcement? Since interrogations by LE fall into the class of testimonial hearsay I can't imagine that a person who essentially tells LE what they want to hear to get a lesser charge, or be let go entirely, would be above hearsay.

18 posted on 03/12/2004 9:12:31 PM PST by alexandria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Forrestfire; djf
I hate those cameras. The taxi drivers got it right in Taiwan, where they beat the ugly things into "dis-service" with baseball bats! LOL Also, the government there would put in fake ones, but the people all knew which were which ;)
19 posted on 03/12/2004 9:33:08 PM PST by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Forrestfire
Not only that, the traffic camera has to be subject to a cross-examination.
20 posted on 03/12/2004 9:39:59 PM PST by ontos-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: djf
You can find free copies at FINDLAW.com
21 posted on 03/12/2004 9:40:54 PM PST by ontos-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: alexandria
the informant would have to testify at trial and be subject to cross-examimniation.
22 posted on 03/12/2004 9:43:38 PM PST by ontos-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: alexandria
Another thing I am curious about would be the domestic violence cases. At times, the police approach the scene and the victim makes a "spontaneous statement" about what happened, and it is used against him at trial even if the victim refuses to testify. So, if a guy gets arrested for spousal abuse, and she makes a "spontaneous statement" but later refuses to testify, does he walk?
23 posted on 03/12/2004 9:52:42 PM PST by Enterprise ("Do you know who I am?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
The email I got that pointe me at the case said a number of cases in Oregon have already (as of Tuesday) been vacated on these grounds. This is almost as earth shaking as Miranda!

"Where nontestimonial hearsay is at issue, it is wholly consistent with the Framers’ design to afford the States flexibility in their development of hearsay law–as does Roberts, and as would an approach that exempted such statements from Confrontation Clause scrutiny altogether. Where testimonial evidence is at issue, however, the Sixth Amendment demands what the common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination. We leave for another day any effort to spell out a comprehensive definition of “testimonial.”10 Whatever else the term covers, it applies at a minimum to prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial; and to police interrogations. These are the modern practices with closest kinship to the abuses at which the Confrontation Clause was directed."
24 posted on 03/12/2004 9:53:51 PM PST by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: alexandria
So does this also include those various "informants" of law enforcement? Since interrogations by LE fall into the class of testimonial hearsay I can't imagine that a person who essentially tells LE what they want to hear to get a lesser charge, or be let go entirely, would be above hearsay.

This means that police who attempt to keep the name od secret informants from a defendent are committing a felony civil rights violation, a felony in and of itself. We'll see what effect this decision has on 800-number *turn in a Jew* anonymous tiplines.

25 posted on 03/12/2004 9:55:45 PM PST by archy (Concrete shoes, cyanide, TNT! Done dirt cheap! Neckties, contracts, high voltage...Done dirt cheap!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
Pinging all the Constitutionalists out there! Does this open up the Grand Jury proceedings to review by the appellate?
26 posted on 03/12/2004 10:06:30 PM PST by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
The statement of fact is that "In a three-section rights-pie made of states-rights, federal-rights and personal-rights, each part of the pie can be assigned to one of the three sections."

I submit that your example is flawed for the same reason most liberal interpretations of the Constitution are flawed:

The People can grant and rescind the Powers of Government. (See the Eighteenth Amendment.) We often complain (and rightly so, IMHO) that the Courts legislate from the bench; yet that would not be possible were the Legislators crafting constitutionally valid laws and regulations.
27 posted on 03/12/2004 10:31:08 PM PST by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Forrestfire
there is in fact case law requiring the officer upon request to bring the acrual radar unit that was used into court. this can be useful in a jury trial. the officer will invariably call the thing a "device" or "instrument," while good defense counsel will call it a "machine," or, occasionally, "gadget."
28 posted on 03/12/2004 10:34:10 PM PST by dep (Ense Petit Placidam Sub Libertate Qvietem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: brityank
I submit that your example is flawed for the same reason most liberal interpretations of the Constitution are flawed: * People have Rights; Governments have Powers.

I looked up the SCOTUS case. It's Darby. And you are right. Darby phrases the pie in terms of powers, not rights.

United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941)

Our conclusion is unaffected by the Tenth Amendment which . . . states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. 312 U.S. 100, 114, 123, 124 (1941)

29 posted on 03/12/2004 10:36:44 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
i would not think so. when a police officer goes to a domestic dispute, one of the first thing the officer asks is, "are there any guns in the house?"

usually if the female is perterbed enough she will blurt out if, in fact, there are weapons in the house. this utterance will hold up on the weapons charge if there is one.

practically speaking, you will know if she will testify against him way before the trial so if she won't the DA will make the decision on whether or not to move forward. and anyway, aren't the plaintiffs in these cases ususally "the people" of the state concerned and therefore the female would not have to testify?

30 posted on 03/12/2004 10:43:02 PM PST by thefactor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: djf
Does this open up the Grand Jury proceedings to review by the appellate?

I don't believe so. A Grand Jury can only bring a finding of 'Bill' or 'No Bill' -- referring to a Bill of Particulars wherein the facts as required by law are set out to determine if a charge is valid or not. The Grand Jury does not adjudicate Guilt or Innocence; that power is reserved to the Jury in a valid Court of Law.

31 posted on 03/12/2004 10:43:56 PM PST by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: brityank
My original point was that the 10th amendment doesn't have much in the way of teeth. I'm not of the mind that the current status of Federalism in the US is healthy, in fact, I believe quite the opposite. I advocate for the repeal of the 17th amendment (popular election of Senators), to give you some insight into my old-fashioned nature. That being said, here is a link that describes the condition of the 10th amendment. Please let it speak for itself, as I'm not inclined to argue for or against it.

FindLaw on the 10th Amendment <-- Link

32 posted on 03/12/2004 10:46:48 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: brityank
That was why I underlined GRAND JURY in my post at 24, which is a quote from the decision. Even Miranda has never been pushed to it's extreme, I'm surprised Martha Stewarts people haven't got a better grip on the law.

Sounds to me the whole forum from the time of determination of probable cause to petit trial is covered.
33 posted on 03/12/2004 10:55:55 PM PST by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: brityank
Ditto.

Blackrobes have no lawful authority to overrule, suspend, or reinterpret the clear and time honored words, phrases, and clauses of our ratified Constitution as they create their "living" and self-serving constitution through citing "compelling State interests" or international law.

Rehnquist shamed his place in history when he led the fight to usurp the "takings" clause of our 5th so that government can "arrest" suspect private property in seizures with intent of "asset forfeiture", criminals' tools and ill-gotten gains so they say...O'Connor has shamed herself by relying on European law and throwing out our 14th's "equal protection" for white guys for another 20 years, sanctioned racism for 40 years.

Justices and others must be impeached and removed from office with that obscene gravy train of their contrived "life-time" income.


For 70 years and no end in site short of Concord, outlaw federal blackrobes have conspired their tyranny far beyond any lawful powers granted them by the people and the several states in the only social contract from which these politicians derive any and all of their temporary and lawful authority.

Socialists' "living" constitution is dead on arrival, with a stake in its heart if necessary because such is not our Ratified Constitution. Lawful courts obey our Constitution rather than undermine it. Millions of We the People living in our several states have sworn before God to defend our (ratified) Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic.
34 posted on 03/12/2004 11:13:42 PM PST by SevenDaysInMay (Federal judges and justices serve for periods of good behavior, not life. Article III sec. 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
They found an amendment they could "reafffirm".

The 8th wonder, eh?

35 posted on 03/12/2004 11:27:47 PM PST by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SevenDaysInMay
Lawful courts obey our Constitution rather than undermine it.

Amen, after all it is our constitution that created the function of our courts in the first place.

36 posted on 03/12/2004 11:34:51 PM PST by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn

Now if we could only reaffirm the 1st, 2nd, and 10th I'd be a much happier person.

Don't forget the 4th Amendment, which has been seriously subverted by the (ANTI)Patriot Act and the Homeland Fatherland Security Act, among others.

BTW, although the DARPA TIA (Total Information Awareness) project, that was passed under the HSA, was defunded after tremendous public outcry, it has recently been learned that TIA is alive and well and still under the administration of convicted felon, John Poindexter, now as a part of ARDA (Advanced Research and Development Agency).

Let me see if I got this right. The Dubya administration authored the single greatest assault on the 4th Amendment in history (the HSA). Then, when public outcry against TIA's threat to the 4th Amendment turned out to be so massive, the administration pretended to give up and lied to the public, saying that they were withdrawing TIA. In actuality, all they really did, was to move both funding for TIA and its operations from DARPA to ARDA, without losing a step and even convicted felon, John Poindexter, is still in charge of it. And all of this from a president who wants us to believe that he is protecting our Constitutional rights. Yeah, right! And pigs fly!

The SCOTUS needs to reaffirm the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 10th Amendments, as well as the 6th. The problem is that Dubya would probably just continue to stonewall, even after a ruling, just as he has done on the 6th Amendment case of non-combatant US citizen, Jose Padilla.

This ruling is a good start, but we have a long way to go.

 

37 posted on 03/12/2004 11:46:39 PM PST by Action-America (Best President: Reagan * Worst President: Klinton * Worst GOP President: Dubya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: djf
The only thing that a Grand Jury can render is a verdict against the accused and a sentence of a trial before a jury of his peers. The Grand Jury, regardless of mustard and ham, is a restriction against the powers of the Prosecutor, and nothing that is presented to the Grand Jury can be used to the detriment of the accused without those same presentments being placed before a true jury with corresponding cross-examination.

I will admit that too much is 'leaked' or speculated about WRT any Grand Jury hearing, especially in a case such as Stuarts; and that is not 'a good thing' as our instantaneous Press can - and I think does - influence any jury pool.

I have seen that in the few cases where a Grand Jury 'No Billed' a defendant, the defendant testified to that Grand Jury. Most plead the Fifth, and therefor the Grand Jury has only the prosecutors version for factual determination.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out; I submit that nothing prior to the trial in front of a Judge and Jury of his Peers will change much; but the presentments thereto from those prior activities will change.
38 posted on 03/12/2004 11:56:13 PM PST by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SevenDaysInMay
Concur.
39 posted on 03/12/2004 11:58:34 PM PST by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Half the reason the 10th Amendment seems like a lost cause is that too many people keep saying it is a lost cause. If Freepers were deterred by conventional wisdom claiming our causes are lost then FR would be a lonely place indeed.
40 posted on 03/13/2004 12:46:24 AM PST by Weirdad (A Free Republic, not a "democracy" (mob rule))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: djf
How sad that the Supreme Court, charged with upholding the Constitution, should make headlines by changing course and finally starting to do so.

(By the way, sometimes one cannot be confronted by ALL hearsay witnesses... 'dying declarations' fall under that heading, too!)

41 posted on 03/13/2004 4:16:04 AM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
The 10th is a lost cause, unfortunately. It is taken as a mere statement of fact, and not as a limitation on government.

It occured to me the other day that the "State of the Union" address is currently a misnomer. We're no longer a union of separate states, but a nation.

42 posted on 03/13/2004 4:51:07 AM PST by Amelia (It's that sudden stop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
What's even more odd is that everyone except the mushy middle joined in upholding the Constitution (Rehnquist and O'Connor concurred with the specific result, not the reasoning, and most certainly not the wholesale disallowing of unchallenged hearsay).

Methinks "dying declarations" would fall under the time-honored "unavailable" exception.

43 posted on 03/13/2004 4:52:00 AM PST by steveegg (You don't clean up 8 years of messes in 4, only to turn it over to Pigpen - W'04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
While all 9 justices found that SCOTWASH got the wrong result, the Mushy Middle (Rehnquist and O'Connor) spent almost all their time defending the practice of allowing unchallenged hearsay.
44 posted on 03/13/2004 4:54:58 AM PST by steveegg (You don't clean up 8 years of messes in 4, only to turn it over to Pigpen - W'04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
The simple answer is yes. But in light of the ruling, I want to know if she is now required to testify, and if she doesn't, will all of the evidence have to be suppressed since it was obtained in violation of the privileged information between man and wife? You could be right of course, but it appears that the court has now told prosecutors that business cannot be done as usual in certain cases like domestic violence.
45 posted on 03/13/2004 6:09:47 AM PST by Enterprise ("Do you know who I am?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
What's the difference between ordinary hearsay and "testimonial hearsay?"
46 posted on 03/13/2004 6:24:24 AM PST by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
As I understand it, "testimonial hearsay" would be something you might see in a preliminary hearing where the lead detective would tell what the victim said, without the victim having to testify. For the purposes of a preliminary hearing, the testimony would be admitted. Ordinary hearsay might be something that would happen at trial if someone said "Joe said such and such" and Joe's statement hadn't yet been presented. For trial purposes, it would be objected to and not allowed. Sorry, I'm not a lawyer, and a lawyer could give much better examples.
47 posted on 03/13/2004 6:38:24 AM PST by Enterprise ("Do you know who I am?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: djf
Scalia calls it "unpardonable vice of the Roberts decision"...

I love when he talks dirty. ;) Scalia is one of the good guys.
48 posted on 03/13/2004 9:30:20 AM PST by adam_az (Call your state Republican party office and VOLUNTEER FOR A CAMPAIGN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: adam_az
If Renquhist went, I think Scalia would make a great Chief justice. He and Thomas are the sharpest of the lot.
49 posted on 03/13/2004 9:39:33 AM PST by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
Don't forget the 4th.


50 posted on 03/13/2004 9:42:06 AM PST by unixfox (Close the borders, problems solved!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson