U.S. SUPREME COURT RULES ABSENT WITNESSES CANNOT HAVE TESTIMONY ADMITTED

Last week, the United States Supreme Court ruled that an absent witness’ testimony cannot be admitted to prove a defendant’s guilt, unless the defendant engaged in acts of misconduct specifically intended to procure the absence of the witness. The criminal justice system has never imposed a duty on a defendant to help the prosecution in proving his or her guilt; however, a defendant has an affirmative duty to refrain from actions that destroy the integrity of the criminal-trial system. The commonly known “Rule of Forfeiture by Wrongdoing” provides that a defendant forfeits his or her right to confrontation of a witness at trial, if that defendant procured the absence of the witness by wrongdoing.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Giles v. California last week interprets the Rule of forfeiture to only apply when a defendant “…engaged in acts of misconduct that were specifically and intentionally designed to prevent the witness from testifying.” The case involved a defendant on trial for the murder of a domestic partner. The police had taken a statement from the victim following a domestic violence incident, and intended to admit the statement at the defendant’s murder trial; citing the Rule of Forfeiture to allow admission. The prosecution’s argument countered the defense’s argument based on United States v. Crawford, which ruled that testimonial evidence should be excluded on confrontation clause grounds; the right of the defense to cross-examine a witness’ testimony. The California State Appeals Court ruled in favor of the prosecution, deciding that the defendant procured the absence of the witness through murder.

The Supreme Court’s decision overturned the lower court’s ruling, and held that at the time of the Constitution’s adoption, the Rule of Forfeiture only applied in situations where the misconduct demonstrated the defendant’s specific intent to procure the absence of the witness; and further, the rule had never been implied to cases of murder. The defendant accused of murder in Giles, if convicted, would not have committed the murder specifically and intentionally to procure the victim’s absence at trial. Therefore, the victim’s testimony was inadmissible. The Supreme Court’s decision will likely influence the New Jersey Supreme Court’s upcoming decision in State v. Byrd, relating to New Jersey’s rules of evidence; currently there is no provision for the exclusion of the confrontation clause due to misconduct.

The Rules of Evidence, both individual state and federal, are complicated and require careful study. An experienced criminal defense attorney knows the Rules of Evidence. If you are charged with a criminal offense, or have begun the criminal-trial process, contact an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately.