6Th Amendment reaffirmed

US Supreme Court | Mar 8,2004 | US Supreme Court

[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.

[ontos-on]

You can find free copies at FINDLAW.com

[ontos-on]

the informant would have to testify at trial and be subject to cross-examimniation.

[Enterprise]

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?

[djf]

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."

[archy]

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.

[djf]

Pinging all the Constitutionalists out there! Does this open up the Grand Jury proceedings to review by the appellate?

[brityank]

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:

• People have Rights; Governments have Powers.

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.

[dep]

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."

[Cboldt]

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)

[thefactor]

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?

[brityank]

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.

[Cboldt]

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

[djf]

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.

[SevenDaysInMay]

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.

[EGPWS]

They found an amendment they could "reafffirm".

The 8th wonder, eh?

[EGPWS]

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.

[Action-America]

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.

 

[brityank]

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.

[brityank]

Concur.

[Weirdad]

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.