Does anyone think the dying declaration of an inmate being executed would be reliable?

The examples of testimonial hearsay the Court gives are all formal in nature and it doesn't appear as though excited utterances fall within the definition. Of course it would have been nice of the Court to give us an actual working definition. I think Zulliani is safe for the time being.

As briefly mentioned above, I see this case as giving impetus to another round of attacks on our statutes specifically addressing child abuse cases. Outcry statements, even though they may be bolstered by 'interlocking' testimony from the stand or by way of CAC tapes, would seem to be in violation. I haven't had time to think through all the other possible ramifications, such as in-chambers or video testimony w/o the defendant being in the child's face, etc.

Some of us at the "home office" have a question relevant to the scope of this decision, namely: how many of you are trying child abuse cases without the victim being "available"?

The limitations in Crawford would appear to only apply where the declarant is unavailable, and we are under the impression that very few child abuse cases are tried without the victim being available (contrary to, say, family violence cases involving adult victims).

Are we out of the loop? Are people (routinely? frequently? occassionally?) trying sexual and/or phyical abuse of children cases without ever producing the child at trial, either in person or by closed-circuit?

I can't even recall a case in which we used a child outcry without the child testifying. Williamson County juries are great juries, but even they expect the victim to testify.

I've got one for you John. I finally have a child sex abuse case in which I'm not planning to call the child to testify. The fine, upstanding teacher felt the need to videotape himself performing the sex acts on the 11 year old child and said tape was recovered during a search for kiddie porn.....

Anybody think the jury will hold it against me to NOT call the boy? His mom will be testifying as to his age, etc.

Does anyone have any Crawford v. Washington appeals pending? I just read Hale v. State, 2004 WL 595106 (Ft. Worth - 2-03-143-CR; 2-03-144-CR; 2-03-145).

I feel the Supreme Court allows the "firmly rooted hearsay exceptions" to continue but has overruled the Ohio v. Roberts "particularized guarnatees of trustworthiness." But it would be nice to see someone else feeling that way. (Especially a court of appeals.)

If you don't have to call the boy to prove the act, I wouldn't. See if you can Voir Dire the issue, Proving a case without a child victim's testimony.

Get them talking about a reason not to have a child testify in court and see if they're smart enough to understand. Those that aren't, consider striking. I'd want the discussion to happen before the prosecution so that once you've got twelve in the box, they have an 'Ah HAH!' moment during your opening when they find out you've got video evidence to shut the case without having the child talk aobut the events.

There's a post Crawford case out of New York that I would recommend reading for anyone dealing with Crawford issues. It's State v. Moscat, 2004 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 231.

Ok so on Monday if my 6 year old witness is made available to testify but freezes in direct and the Defense can't get much by way of cross is the Outcry stmt of the little boy's mom out of my reach as well???I don't want to make bad law for us!!!! This is a Juvenile Jury trial.

Thanks Ginger, found it. Should note that it is People v. Moscat.

I like the Moscat case. We're going to pass that one around.

If you can assist Ms Franzen, a reporter with the Portland Oregonian, with her request please respond to her at the email address shown below.

If you can assist her please cc the NDAA director of Media Relations, Velva Walter at velva.walter@ndaa-apri.org ...

--------------------------

I'm writing a story about the impact of Crawford v. Washington on criminal prosecutions, and would like the article to be national in scope. Can you put me in contact with some of your colleagues across the country? I'd like to hear what kind of new issues they are dealing with in light of the decision. Would you be willing to forward my query to those in your email group?

Here's my contact information: Robin Franzen, reporter, The Oregonian; 503-221-8133; robinfranzen@news.oregonian.com.; fax, 503-294-5009. I have no firm deadline for the story, but would hope to have something in print within the next couple weeks.

Thanks,
Robin

Robin Franzen
robinfranzen@news.oregonian.com
503-221-8133