Legal Spring Logo

"Your one and only source for online legal services"
Reviewing Legal Services Online
 LEGAL SPRING
     


Google
 
[liibulletin] LIIBULLETIN, Tuesday April 15 (1 preview)



LII Editor
4/16/2008 6:58:36 AM


=============================================================
Oral argument previews:
Prepared by the liibulletin editorial board:
< http://www.law.cornell.edu/bulletin/board_current.htm >
=============================================================
CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING, INTENT,
CRAWFORD v. WASHINGTON
Giles v. California (07-6053)
Oral argument: April 22, 2008
Appealed from: The Supreme Court of California (March. 5, 2007)
In 2002, Dwayne Giles shot his ex-girlfriend, Brenda Avie. Giles
admitted to killing Avie, claiming he had done so in self-
defense. Prosecutors sought to refute his defense by introducing
statements Avie had made three weeks prior to her death, during
an earlier domestic violence investigation. During that
investigation, Avie told police about Giles attacking and
threatening to kill her. The California state trial court ruled
that Avie's statements were admissible, based on a hearsay
exception for statements about physical harm suffered by an
unavailable declarant. While Giles's appeal was pending, the U.S.
Supreme Court held in Crawford v. Washington that "testimonial"
statements were inadmissible under the Sixth Amendment's
Confrontation Clause if a defendant could not cross-examine the
witness. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial
court's holding, reasoning that the "forfeiture by wrongdoing"
doctrine survived Crawford. Under this equitable doctrine - a
doctrine applied subject to a court's judgment about fairness - a
defendant forfeits his constitutional right to cross-examine a
witness if his wrongdoing made the witness unavailable. The
Supreme Court of California held, contrary to Giles' arguments,
that forfeiture by wrongdoing did not require showing that a
defendant intended to make a witness unavailable. The U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in this case will determine the scope of
a defendant's right to cross-examine witnesses and how broadly
courts may apply the forfeiture doctrine.
Continues: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/07-6053.html
_______________________________________________
Liibulletin mailing list
Liibulletin@ruckus.law.cornell.edu
http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/liibulletin
You are currently subscribed as bernie@fantasyfarm.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to liibulletin-leave@ruckus.law.cornell.edu
 
 
Report this post for offensive content


site map |  disclaimer |  privacy
All Rights Reserved, Legal Spring, Inc. 2004