Pardon me, but wouldn’t the “Killer’s victim” be dead?
will Scalia be writing the magority for Heller now that he has written this opinion?
He already “confronted” her.
<<< 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. >>>
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.......
Doesn’t this mean the defendant will be retried , but this time without the hearsay from the officer ?
It looks like this decision was written by the conservative good guys.
I’m not sure what they were thinking. I’ve always thought that in a case like this the jury should hear the evidence and then be warned by the judge that it is hearsay.
But I can understand the decision, I guess. A LEO presented the hearsay evidence, and it could be a dangerous precedent if they are allowed to do that.
Does this mean that 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’s a technicality, an unfortunate one but ..