« Courts - Nevada high court defies lawmakers on salaries | Main | Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week »

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Courts - "Justices to decide whether murder victims' prior statements are admissible"

David G. Savage reports in the Los Angeles Times:

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear a Los Angeles murderer's appeal to decide a legal question that sounds like a macabre joke: The man argues that his victim's statements to police shouldn't be admissible, because the dead witness isn't available for cross-examination.

The case, to be decided in the spring, could have a serious impact in many trials where a key witness isn't there to testify.

Three years ago, in something of a surprise, the high court said "hearsay" or other out-of-court statements generally cannot be used in a trial. That repealed the more relaxed rule that had been in effect for more than two decades.

Prior to 2004, reliable out-of-court statements, such a police officer's report of an interview with a witness, could be used at a trial if the witness was not available.

This issue arises often in cases of child abuse or spousal abuse, when the victim is often too afraid to testify.

But Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking for the court, said this relaxed approach to hearsay conflicts with the 6th Amendment, which says the accused "shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

Scalia said those words should be read literally, and they give defendants the right to confront and cross-examine their accusers in court. This is essential, he said, so the jury can decide who is telling the truth.

Since then, judges have struggled to decide how far to take that right.

Two years ago, the high court reinforced its new stand when it threw out a spousal assault conviction against an Indiana man whose wife had refused to testify. However, the jury heard from a police officer who had been called to their house. The woman said she been hit and thrown to the floor, the office reported, and he described her bruises. But Scalia said the officer's report should have been excluded from the trial.

The new case, Dwayne Giles vs. California, tests the outer limit of the right to confront a witness.

The Indiana case was Hammon v. Indiana (05-5705). For background, see this ILB entry from June 19, 2006, headed "U.S Supreme Court decides Indiana 'confrontation clause' case today."

Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 13, 2008 01:01 PM
Posted to Courts in general