1001 users online (213 members and 788 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20
  1. #1
    SewingDeb's Avatar
    SewingDeb is offline "Sorry, I'm not qualified to land the plane."
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    8,957

    CA - Supreme Court won't allow statements by murder victim

    Court won't allow statements by killer's victim

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that a murder victim's prior statements cannot be used against her killer because it would violate a defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses who testify against him.
    The high court's 6-3 ruling was a victory for Dwayne Giles, who had been convicted by a jury in Los Angeles for the 2002 shooting death of his former girlfriend, Brenda Avie. He was sentenced to at least 50 years in prison.

    The court majority said the constitutional right to confront a witness applied even if the defendant was responsible for the witness being unavailable to testify at trial.

    At the trial, the jury heard statements that Avie made to a police officer several weeks before her death that Giles had assaulted her and threatened to kill her.

    Giles appealed his conviction and argued that Avie's statements should not have been allowed because his lawyers never had an opportunity to cross-examine her.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080625/...t_testimony_dc

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,468
    All I have to say is That is outrageous.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,814
    Thats disgusting and makes no sense........so if a child or anyone else is interviewed and says they were abused etc and the POS kills them then their statements cant be used ...even though its the POS's FAULT that the witness is not there.......Ohhh this makes me rage. Stupid Judges

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Cali -- but im a north east girl at heart!
    Posts
    424
    this makes no sense.

    THE KILLER SHOULDN'T HAVE OPENED HIS MOUTH if he didn't want this to be used against him.

    that's how i would've ruled.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Oh Captain, My Captain
    Posts
    28,119
    The wife who just convicted her husband from the grave-I guess this is going to get him set free. How about witness statements that include video interrogations etc??? Those cases are going down the toilet too....The Supreme Court is on a roll-K word to the court; they just encouraged batterers to kill their so's since prior complaints cannot be used against them if they kill the so's.

    FABulouS.

  6. #6
    hipmamajen's Avatar
    hipmamajen is offline I love the friends I have gathered together on this thin raft...
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,199
    Quote Originally Posted by SewingDeb View Post
    The court majority said the constitutional right to confront a witness applied even if the defendant was responsible for the witness being unavailable to testify at trial.
    Did you hear that criminals? Just KILL ALL THE WITNESSES, then you're off scot free.

    Do these judges even think about stuff like this?
    Just thinkin' out loud....


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    32,579
    I'm not likin' this decision at all. There's two cases being investigated in Illinois right now, that depend on statements made by the deceased wives.

    Lisa Stebic and the Kathleen Savio and Stacy Peterson cases.

    I hope this doesn't mean they aren't going to be able to get these guys.

    JMHO
    fran

  8. #8
    Oh geez..this is bad news. I would say the killers already confronted the murder vic about what they had said, written or done..tha's why the vic is dead.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,075
    We need to change our laws to make life as a criminal harder, and elect/appoint judges who are stronger on crime.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    7,766
    Quote Originally Posted by ttrachel04 View Post
    this makes no sense.

    THE KILLER SHOULDN'T HAVE OPENED HIS MOUTH if he didn't want this to be used against him.

    that's how i would've ruled.

    Dag-gone right ttrachel.
    The killer should have very few rights.
    Why are defendants offered more and more rights?


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nestled Deep in Southern Hospitality
    Posts
    21,917
    Uh oh! This is the case that Mark Jensen's lawyer said would get him a new trial if the US Supreme Court found in favor of Giles.

    What a blow to the victims....more and more the defendants have all the rights and the victim has none.

    imoo
    "Pardon Our Noise, It's the Sound of Freedom" USMC New River Air Station, Jacksonville, North Carolina

  12. #12
    SewingDeb's Avatar
    SewingDeb is offline "Sorry, I'm not qualified to land the plane."
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    8,957
    I'm disgusted with this ruling. I think the jury needs to hear a lot more than they do now in order to make a true and right decision.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    10,829
    Quote Originally Posted by hipmamajen View Post
    Did you hear that criminals? Just KILL ALL THE WITNESSES, then you're off scot free.

    Do these judges even think about stuff like this?
    That was my first thought, as well.

    This just seems wrong, on many levels. Hurt the victim's chances for justice even more. That may not be the situation in every case, but we do know it has made a difference in some cases in the past.

    GRRRRRRRR

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,111
    The responses here all seem predicated in a belief that the victim's statement was accurate, but the accuracy of such statements is precisely the problem confronted by the court.

    Any statement that "so-and-so is going to kill me" is at best a prediction, rather than a statement of fact, and at worst it may be only a hunch, a vague fear, a rash statement made in anger or even just a joke. ("That man'll be the death of me yet!")

    But once the victim is killed, the same statement will take on a sort of eerie and uncanny accuracy which it may or may not deserve, and which a defendant has no way of counteracting. I believe this is the problem recognized by the court.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    2,107
    Quote Originally Posted by SewingDeb View Post
    Court won't allow statements by killer's victim

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that a murder victim's prior statements cannot be used against her killer because it would violate a defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses who testify against him.
    The high court's 6-3 ruling was a victory for Dwayne Giles, who had been convicted by a jury in Los Angeles for the 2002 shooting death of his former girlfriend, Brenda Avie. He was sentenced to at least 50 years in prison.

    The court majority said the constitutional right to confront a witness applied even if the defendant was responsible for the witness being unavailable to testify at trial.

    At the trial, the jury heard statements that Avie made to a police officer several weeks before her death that Giles had assaulted her and threatened to kill her.

    Giles appealed his conviction and argued that Avie's statements should not have been allowed because his lawyers never had an opportunity to cross-examine her.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080625/...t_testimony_dc
    HOLD THE &@#^* ON!

    A statement to the POLICE is not allowed if the victim winds up dead later on???
    WHAT?
    We know hearsay etc is not allowed, like Diary entries without an independant witness to whatever the person claims in the diary.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast