Crawford Issues

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) indicated and Davis v. Washington confirmed "that one who obtains the absence of a witness by wrongdoing forfeits the constitutional right to confrontation." 165 L.Ed.2d. 224, 244 (2006). But does the prosecution have to prove the specific intent was to prevent the person testifying? That is the issue in New Mexico v. Romero, 07-37. The cert. petition is here, courtesy of AAG Joel Jacobsen. As a practical matter, such proof could be extremely difficult. Motives of preventing testimony, retaliation for going the police, and whatever the motive was for the original act of violence could all be mixed. When the killer has multiple motives, how do you prove specific intent?

Another Crawford case to watch is Cage v. California, 07-5156. The California Supreme held that the son's statement to the emergency room doctor in response to the question "What happened?" was not testimonial. A statement to the investigating police officer was testimonial, but it was harmless due to being cumulative to the other statement. The cert. petition in Cage is here, courtesy of Gary Schons.

This item "stolen" from the Crime & Consequences Blog.