tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9532013.post5698641466960935950..comments2024-03-28T04:12:44.103-04:00Comments on The Confrontation Blog: Petitioner's brief in Giles filedRichard D. Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08376534293308240526noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9532013.post-7534287056824350482008-02-24T23:37:00.000-05:002008-02-24T23:37:00.000-05:00This is the Jensen case from Wisconsin. It is one...This is the <I>Jensen</I> case from Wisconsin. It is one of those, like the recent <I>Sanchez</I> case from Montana, in which the eventual murder victim, anticipating that she might be killed, leaves a communication saying in effect, "If anything happens to me . . . " I think the statement was testimonial, but if the court is persuaded to the requisite degree of confidence that the accused killed the victim without justification, he should be held to have forfeited the confrontation right. In <I>Giles</I>, the statement was also a testimonial one made before the killing. There, it was clear that the accused killed the victim, but he contended he acted in self-defense. I don't think this difference is significant; in neither`case could there be forfeiture unless the court concluded that the accused killed the victim without justification. Whether there can be forfeiture without proof that the motivating purpose for killing the victim was to render her unavailable as a witness -- I believe there can be -- is the issue to be decided in <I>Giles</I>.Richard D. Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08376534293308240526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9532013.post-51166094582237864782008-02-22T14:21:00.000-05:002008-02-22T14:21:00.000-05:00Do you have any thought on this case: http://news....Do you have any thought on this case: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080222/ap_on_re_us/poisoning_death;_ylt=AgRFlYUL_7lNjq_BB9EVBRqs0NUE<BR/><BR/>The fact pattern is different than Giles and I wonder if it makes any difference. In Giles, what is at stake is intention. Here, it is not clear that the defendent was involved in the crime at all. <BR/><BR/>Curious to your thoughts as to the difference between the two cases and how the SC might look at them differently.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com