New Supreme Court opinion on Crawford today

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/05-5224P.ZO

We conclude from all this that the circumstances of McCottry's interrogation objectively indicate its primary purpose was to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. She simply was not acting as a witness; she was not testifying. What she said was not a weaker
substitute for live testimony at trial, United States v. Inadi, 475 U. S. 387, 394 (1986), like Lord Cobham's statements in Raleigh's Case, 2 How. St. Tr. 1 (1603), or Jane Dingler's ex parte statements against her husband in King v. Dingler, 2 Leach 561, 168 Eng. Rep. 383 (1791), or
Sylvia Crawford's statement in Crawford. In each of those cases, the ex parte actors and the evidentiary products of the ex parte communication aligned perfectly with their
courtroom analogues. McCottry's emergency statement does not. No 'witness' goes into court to proclaim an emergency and seek help.

Just shows you how slow technology is when you really need it. Been looking at www.supremecourtus.gov and www.lexis.com all day, but they don't have either of the Crawford cases, as of 2:10 pm

[This message was edited by John Rolater on 06-19-06 at .]

The harshness of Crawford has been tempered. It will be satisfying to see the state courts relax their grip as a result of these decisions. Although there will be much finessing to accomplish in the future, the blanket bar has at least had its corner lifted. A good day in DC: a great day for criminal justice!


As an aside, the "How Appealing" blog remains one of the best ways to keep up to date with national current events and also provides the necessary links in a timely fashion.

[This message was edited by John Stride on 06-19-06 at .]

Davis and Hammon provide a substantial boost for the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing recognized in Crawford. Has anyone successfully used this doctrine yet?

so are they now saying that for a statement not to be testimonial it has to be a lot different at trial than when the statement was first given? it's kind of ironic that justice scalia sought to do away with all those "firmly rooted exception" or "indicia of reliability" tests for determining if hearsay violated the confrontation clause and it looks like he's going down the same type of slippery slope. don't get me wrong, i'm happy about the opinion. just thinking out loud.

John S:

wrt forfeiture by wrongdoing, see cases collected in:

http://www.dwt.com/lawdir/publications/CrawfordOutline.pdf

at bottom of page 15.

David N., I agree. While Justice Scalia has rewritten Sixth Amendment law and will be remembered for years to come, he has simply generated another filter, which is also subject to erosion. At least, we can see through it again--until this week it was clogged up!

Thanks Jimbeaux-- I was also looking for recent Texas illustrations maybe not even in opinions.

[This message was edited by John Stride on 06-20-06 at .]

looks like there's a new case from the court of criminal appeals on forfeiture by wrongdoing.

Gonzales

[This message was edited by David Newell on 06-21-06 at .]

Crawford becomes even more tolerable. And compliments to those attorneys who briefed the issue--Judge Cochran observed: "We have been favored with thorough briefing by both the State and appellant." Useful language too: "The doctrine of forefeiture of wrongdoing may apply even though the act with which the accused is charged is the same as the one by which he allegedly rendered the witness unavailable."

[This message was edited by John Stride on 06-21-06 at .]

These are the folks listed on the court of appeals case:

Enrico B. Valdez, Sommer Hoffman, Asst. Criminal Dist. Atty's, San Antonio, for appellee.

I couldn't get any indication who did the brief at the Court of Criminal Appeals, but I suspect that it was probably based a lot on the wonderful job that these folks did in San Antonio. Excellent work!

New decision on forfeiture by wrongdoing

Link

So do differences between Texas and California even matter?