Court: Victim's dying words may be used at trial

[SpartanDem]

Source: WaPo

WASHINGTON — A mortally wounded man’s identification of his assailant may be repeated by police officers in court, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday

The ruling could reinstate murder charges against a Detroit man who in 2001 was identified by his victim shortly before the victim died of his wounds.

The 6-to-2 ruling drew a withering dissent from Justice Antonin Scalia, the court's most outspoken advocate for the Sixth Amendment's requirement that the accused "be confronted with the witnesses against him." The majority's reasoning, Scalia wrote, "is so transparently false that professing to believe it demeans this institution

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sided with Scalia but declined to join his caustic comments. Justice Elena Kagan was recused from the case because she had worked on it as President Obama's solicitor general.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR2011022805303.html?sid=ST2011022806628

[polmaven]

1. Wait!!!!

According to this Justice Clarence Thomas voted differently from Justice Antonin Scalia??????

Has that ever happened before? :shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug:

[AtheistCrusader]

3. Yes it has.

I think Scalia is on the ball here too. That sort of testimony amounts to hearsay.

For instance, if you said something to a police officer that was exculpatory, and you asked the officer to repeat it on the stand, prosecution would object as hearsay, and the testimony would not be heard.

This was a major supreme court fuckup.

[msanthrope]

9. Dying declaration is an exception to the hearsay rule.

In your hypo, if the defense attorney was stupid enough to ask a cop what their client said, then they really shouldn't be practicing. There's plenty of ways to get that evidence in, but relying on a cop to tell the truth is the quickest way to put your client in jail.

[AngryAmish]

10. Dying declaration is an anachronism that should go away

1. How does a person know that they are dying? They don't.

2. This assumes that everyone is religious and does not want to go to meet St. Peter with a lie on their lips. That is full of shit.

3. How in the world can it be considered reliable hearsay? The only indicia of reliability is 2. above.

In Illinois they modified the hearsay rule to put one asshole in prison. That particular asshole should be in prison, but you don't gut the confrontation clause to do it.

[msanthrope]

12. I agree with your overall point, but differ with you on your specifics..

1) People can and do know they are dying. I've seen it happen. And your average cop will cheerfully tell some victims that yes, their stupid behavior has earned them a 'dirt nap.'

2) Even non-religious people have a vested interest in fingering the right dude. And non-religious people also have the need to 'put things right' at the end.

3) I think the trauma of death is the issue--it is the trauma and great psychological stress that most people feel that makes lying difficult to do.

I think, allowing a dying declaration serves this one purpose though--it gives the victim an opportunity to testify, an opportunity they will be denied through the actions of others.

[jberryhill]

15. Scalia is more familiar with the rule "Dead men tell no tales"

The court declined to overturn a codified hearsay exception.

Angry Amish makes a good point, and should contact his legislators.

[pacalo]

18. The decision doesn't guard against an accused person being set up.

Could be likened to false evidence being planted.

[Recursion]

14. Yes, Scalia has talked about that

Scalia has said while he has a limited sense of stare decisis, Thomas literally does not believe in it at all.

Also, Scalia is IMO dead right on this case; while he's an ideologue and an asshole, unlike Thomas he is actually a very smart guy.

[TxVietVet]

19. Is Thomas trying to act like he can think?

Go figure.

Is he going to be investigated for ruling in favor of one of his benefactors?

Oh, that's right, I'm sorry.

"We've got the best democracy money can buy." Bigbux Doug

[Demeter]

2. That was the whole plot device in "The Fugitive"

The Harrison Ford version. Dying wife calling for husband, interpreted as her accusing him of killing her.

[Mariana]

11. Yes, but that story had an actual recording of her saying it.

It wasn't a matter of someone else telling the court what he/she heard the dying woman say.

[happyslug]

4. The actual Opinion

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-150.pdf

[happyslug]

5. As to Ginsburg dissent...

After agreeing with Scalia as to Confrontation, Ginsburg adds the following Comment in her dissent:

I would add, however, this observation. In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36, 56, n. 6 (2004), this Court noted that, in the law we inherited from England, there was a well-established exception to the confrontation requirement: The cloak protecting the accused against admission of out-of-court testimonial statements was removed for dying declarations. This historic exception, we recalled in Giles v. California, 554 U. S. 353, 358 (2008); see id., at 361–362, 368, applied to statements made by a person about to die and aware that death was imminent. Were the issue properly tendered here, I would take up the question whether the exception for dying declarations survives our recent Confrontation Clause decisions. The Michigan Supreme Court, however, held, as a matter of state law, that the prosecutor had abandoned the issue. See 483 Mich. 132, 156–157, 768 N. W. 2d 65, 78 (2009). The matter, therefore, is not one the Court can address in this case.

What does she mean by that? Does she think dying declarations do NOT meet the requirements of the Confrontation Clause of the US Constitution? Even if this was in the Majority decision is still would be dicta, but it is interesting that at least on Justice thinks Dying Declarations may violate the right to confront people testifying against you.

[msanthrope]

7. Ginsburg isn't stating that she doesn't think that dying declaration

exceptions haven't survived Giles--merely that the issue is not before the Court, and therefore is not properly addressed at this time.

But there's something else going on---

1) She's noting for us sportsfans and appellate criminal defense lawyers that there is an issue out there that deserves exploration--she's roadmapping it for further appeal. It's a nice way of telling the appellate bar that cert will happen.

2) She's having a bit of fun at Scalia's expense--he and Thomas, and to a lesser extent, Alito, LOVE leaving these little roadmaps in their decisions...it's especially fun for them when they have a Republican SG to play along.

[X_Digger]

17. I believe so, yes..

Or she would have taken the tack that the person didn't know they were about to die.

At least that's the way I read it.

[NashVegas]

6. If There's No Recording Of It

It's hearsay, indeed.

[msanthrope]

8. No, it is not. It is an exception to hearsay, and might be the easiest

points on the bar exam.

[former9thward]

13. Scalia and Ginsburg are right. This decision is an attack on the Confrontation Clause.

The five police officers were interrogating the victim (who did not know he was dying) about a past crime. There was no ongoing emergency and the officers took no actions which would indicate an emergency. They did not draw their guns or even search the store next to where the victim lie. There testimony should not be allowed in.

[rug]

16. I'm with the National association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (and Scalia) on this one.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_09_10_09_150_RespondentAmCuNACDL.authcheckdam.pdf