The US Supreme Court is set to consider a case, Giles v. California that deals with a criminal defendant’s right to confront a witness killed by that same defendant. The defendant admitted killing the victim, but claimed he fired in self defense. The trial judge admitted into evidence statements the victim had made to police officers at the scene of a prior incident.
On appeal, the defendant, now a convicted murderer, argued that the judge violated his right to confront adverse witnesses when the statements were allowed into evidence. Since the victim was dead, he was unable to cross-examine her. The statements were testimonial. They were made out of court and were being offered into evidence. The statements were hearsay.
The California Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding that the statements were properly admitted under California law, and that it met federal Constitutional standards as well.
What makes this case interesting is the 2004 Supreme Court case of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36. In Crawford, the Supreme Court breathed new life into the Confrontation Clause. Crawford overrules a 1980 case, Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, that had clearly addressed these issues.
Post a Comment