Court won't allow statements by killer's victim

Reuters ^ | June 25, 2008

[Lurking Libertarian]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that a murder victim's prior statements cannot be used against her killer because it would violate a defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses who testify against him.

The high court's 6-3 ruling was a victory for Dwayne Giles, who had been convicted by a jury in Los Angeles for the 2002 shooting death of his former girlfriend, Brenda Avie. He was sentenced to at least 50 years in prison.

The court majority said the constitutional right to confront a witness applied even if the defendant was responsible for the witness being unavailable to testify at trial.

*****

The majority ruling, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, overturned a decision by a California court that upheld Giles' conviction. The Supreme Court said the victim's testimony should have been excluded.

Justices Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens and Anthony Kennedy dissented.

[wideawake]

GREAT WORK MORONS. YOU JUST TOLD EVERY SCUMBAG THAT WAS THINKING OF KILLING THE WITNESSES AGAINST THEM TO GO AHEAD AND DO IT BECAUSE ITS A WIN WIN SITUATION FOR THEM.......

Calm down.

You're completely wrong and you need to think it through.

[Lurking Libertarian]

It looks like this decision was written by the conservative good guys.

Yup. Written by Scalia, joined by Roberts, Thomas and Alito, and joined in part by Souter and Ginsburg. Dissent by Breyer, Kennedy and Stevens.

I’m not sure what they were thinking.

Basically, they are saying that the defendant's constitutional right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him" means what it says.

[Puppage]

Pardon me, but wouldn’t the “Killer’s victim” be dead?

Headline doesn't mesh with the statement....

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that a murder victim's prior statements

[NormsRevenge]

it’s a technicality, an unfortunate one but ..

[wideawake]

A recorded 911 call should be considered an exception to the hearsay rule because it is an “excited utterance.”

[swain_forkbeard]

But what’s the diffrence? Both the recorded voice and the cop’s interview notes are records of what the witness said when she was alive.

[SoConPubbie]

From the article:

Justices Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens and Anthony Kennedy dissented.

I know everyone else doesn't agree with this, but on a matter of principle, this was the right opinion for all the right reasons.

Specifically, from the article again:

because it would violate a defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses who testify against him.

Did the perp deserve to die?

More than likely, yes!

Should his constitional rights be violated in the process?

No.

If you were brought to trial and accused of a crime (murder or otherwise), and were innocent, would you want the Prosecution to get away with actions like this?

[frogjerk]

But what’s the diffrence? Both the recorded voice and the cop’s interview notes are records of what the witness said when she was alive.

See post #25

[DoughtyOne]

A recorded 911 call should be considered an exception to the hearsay rule because it is an “excited utterance."

Okay.  I want to push this comment some.  Lets see what you think.

Two weeks prior to her death, a victim calls 911 to state that her boyfriend is trying to kill her.  The police arrive, sure enough, there are signs of physical abuse, and they yank him out of the house.

Is that 911 call admisable as evidence when she is killed two weeks later, and her boyfriend is the supsect?  My take is no.

[wideawake]

No, it is not admissable - unless he is being prosecuted not for her murder but for the beating that took place on the day of the 911 call.

Say, for example, he was being prosecuted solely for assaulting her and while the prosecution was preparing to go to trial she was hit by a city bus and killed in front of witnesses.

The prosecution would not have a complaining witness, but they would have her excited utterance on the 911 tape.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the response. I think we’re in agreement.

I will say that the bus incident wasn’t what I was thinking of. I was thinking more along the lines of her being found dead in the same apartment where the police responded weeks earlier.

[wideawake]

Then no.

[BlazingArizona]

Everyone on this thread is overthinking this....you know the truth...its BS, the SC ruling has protected terrorists, child rapists, now killers. We’re going down...

And tomorrow, when we lose our guns, we won't be able to fire back.

[kbennkc]

Tomorrow could be hugh , I am series .

[SECURE AMERICA]

GREAT WORK MORONS. YOU JUST TOLD EVERY SCUMBAG THAT WAS THINKING OF KILLING THE WITNESSES AGAINST THEM TO GO AHEAD AND DO IT BECAUSE ITS A WIN WIN SITUATION FOR THEM.......
Calm down.

You’re completely wrong and you need to think it through.

AS A FORMER POLICE OFFICER AND CORRECTIONS OFFICER WHO HAS HAD TO DEAL WITH MUDERERS AND OTHER ASSORTED SCUMBAGS THROUGHOUT MY CAREER AND HAVE SEEN THEM THINK IT THROUGH, I STAND BY MY STATEMENT.

[kbennkc]

Did you testify much ?

[Publius Valerius]

a recorded 911 call from a victim, who is now dead, screaming that the attacker is so-and-so is now inadmissible in court

It IS hearsay, but it is nevertheless admissible under any one of a number of exceptions. I don't believe today's ruling would change that.

[Publius Valerius]

Is that 911 call admisable as evidence when she is killed two weeks later

Wide, I think this is a tougher call than your initial take. If I'm the state, I think my argument is that it's not hearsay, because I'm not admitting the tape as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted--that boyfriend was trying to kill her at that moment--but perhaps that boyfriend has a propensity towards violence or to show that girlfriend feared for her life from boyfriend.

I think there are 404 problems with either of the two above approaches, but I think there's room to be creative here.

[Borges]

Couldn't the prior phone call be used as evidence of violent intent in the past and the basis for a ‘motive’? I plead ignorance about the legal technicalities here.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you. That conclusion seems reasonable to me as well.