|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996 |
Here is a link to a newspaper article. I'd like comments from anyone who has read the article. LINK HERE Basically it is about conflicting rights in a court decision. The problem:Now the court must decide whether a killer may go free in a case where the witness is not just missing, but dead. During the oral argument in April in the Giles case, several justices, including Scalia, said they were reluctant to relax the confrontation rule unless it could be shown that the defendant killed the witness specifically to silence her.
Rarely is such proof available, prosecutors say. "This is a bedrock principle. The Constitution says if you are going to make an allegation, the person you are accusing has a right to look you in the face and challenge what are saying," said David Feige, a law professor at Seton Hall in New Jersey. "We should not erode something as basic as that." In two rulings, Justice Antonin Scalia set down a firm rule barring use of such evidence from absent witnesses. He cited the 6th Amendment, which says in part, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him The lone dissenter, Justice Richard C. Bosson, said, "The witness cannot speak for herself because she is dead at Romero's hands. It seems a perversion of the Constitution and the Confrontation Clause to allow any defendant to profit so from his own misdeeds What are your comments?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996 |
Which State made the better decision? The California Supreme Court rejected Giles' appeal and ruled that because he caused the witness' absence, he could not object to her prior statements being used against him at the trial.
The New Mexico Supreme Court took the opposite view in the case of Anthony Romero. He is a free man now that the state judges -- citing the U.S. Supreme Court -- ruled that his deceased wife's reports of battering and abuse should not have been used against him at his trial.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996 |
And - THIS man's case was retried and incriminating evidence was ruled inadmissable in court: Romero was retried, convicted on a lesser count and freed because he had already served several years in prison.
Now Romero says he recently remarried and is working as a school janitor.
"Life's been good to me," he said in a phone interview.
Last edited by Pepperband; 06/17/08 03:22 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996 |
This is the position that makes the most sense to me: The Supreme Court is due to decide that question in a Los Angeles case that has alarmed advocates for victims of domestic violence. They fear that the justices, determined to protect the fair-trial rights of defendants, are in danger of creating an incentive to kill. I agree - there exists the danger of an added incentive for the abuser to kill the abused spouse - Pep
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,423
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,423 |
I agree with you, Pep. The added incentive (motive)for the abuser to kill the abused spouse increases greatly.
I can see the possibility for both decisions to create the possibility to be abused by lawyers/cops/etc. Unfortunateley, there is somtimes corruption within the system and words can be put in the victims mouth to benefit the prosecution. He/she is then not there to say that ISN'T was was said.
However, I think the benefits far outweight the risks in this particular case.
Tough call.
|
|
|
Moderated by Ariel, BerlinMB, Denali, Fordude, IrishGreen, MBeliever, MBSync, McLovin, Mizar, PhoenixMB, Toujours
|
0 members (),
273
guests, and
28
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums67
Topics133,659
Posts2,323,613
Members72,372
| |
Most Online9,682
May 13th, 2026
|
|
|
|
