By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer
March 20, 2006
<snip>
Today, the high court will hear the appeals of two men who were convicted of assaulting women based, in one case, on a recorded 911 call, and in the other, on a police officer's testimony of what the victim told him.
Over the last two decades, prosecutors in domestic violence and child abuse cases have relied heavily on testimony by police officers and counselors who interviewed the alleged victims when they could not or would not appear in court.
But those prosecutions have a formidable foe in Justice Antonin Scalia. He insists the Constitution guarantees all defendants a right to confront their accusers in court, and sees no basis for an exception in cases of domestic violence or child abuse.
Two years ago, Scalia wrote an opinion for the court that all but barred the use of out-of-court statements at trials when the witness is unavailable to testify.
The only sure test of whether "testimonial statements" are reliable, Scalia concluded, "is the one the Constitution actually prescribes: confrontation." The 6th Amendment, he noted, says: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him."
<snip>
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus20mar20,0,7146111.story?coll=la-home-nation++++++++++++++++
An interesting predicament, pitting the Constitutional right to confront one's accusers against the desire to protect people who may be the victims of crimes. This goes much farther than domestic violence, which is the crime du jour, guaranteed to be easily understood by the people. This case, if it goes against the Confrontation right, will make it even easier to convict any of us on untested accusations.