"Supreme" Court: Dead (abuse) victim's prior statements can't be used at trial

[Triana]

A grossly misogynist ruling from a grossly misogynist court (and Scalia in particular - scumbag duJour)
_ _ _ _ _

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/25/dead.witness.ap/index.html

Dead (abuse) victim's prior statements can't be used at trial (victim was threatened with death by abuser)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a convicted killer deserves a new trial because jurors heard testimony that should have been excluded. His ex-girlfriend made the statements shortly before he killed her.

The justices, in a 6-3 vote, reaffirmed the rights of criminal defendants to confront witnesses against them, even in cases where the defendant is responsible for the witness' absence.

The issue arose in the case of Dwayne Giles, arrested in the shooting death of Brenda Avie in 2002, several weeks after she told police that Giles had assaulted her and threatened to kill her.

Justice Antonin Scalia said in his majority opinion that domestic violence, though "an intolerable offense," does not justify "abridging the rights of criminal defendants."

:wtf:

[Ian David]

1. So, if you kill a witness, their testimony has to be stricken from the record? n/t

[Lance_Boyle]

3. if that witness is the accusor, and cannot be present at trial, yes

Allowing that testimony is fundamentally the same as allowing "secret evidence" to be used again the accused. It's just not kosher.

[elehhhhna]

4. per the rulihng, not if you killed the witness in order to stop their testifying.

[Triana]

7. Which he obviously DID. n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. I would think so, but remember that you can be convicted for murdering them without their testimony.

Killing a witness may well help you get off on the original charge, but if it can be proved that you did it then you'll be sent to jail for a worse one, and if it can't be proved that you did it then the law should treat you as though you didn't.

[Lance_Boyle]

2. it's the right decision

the accused has the right to face the accuser in court. It's one of those pesky bedrock legal principles.

[Ian David]

5. I'm conflicted on this. My head might explode. n/t

[bowens43]

6. I agree with the court.

the accused has an absolute right to confront his accusers.