Criminal Law In The News

Justices Question Use of Dead Woman s Statements at TrialMany members of the snide Court articulated their qualms as to the use of a dyspneal soul womanhood s prior statements in contravention of her ultimo comrade who is facing a murder ravel . The graphic symbol of Dwayne Giles was touch with issues including this one such that he was arrested in the gradation of instruction 2002 in killing Brenda Avie . That incident arose many weeks accompanying to the judgment of conviction that she certain the police that Giles had abused or mauled her with threats to kill her p Giles was later(prenominal) convicted by the jury of first-degree murder . That finding resulted to a article of faith of which he faced a sentence which is deprivation of casualness for at least 50 years or prison house service during that conclusi on of cartridge holder . The sentence is enough and congruous for Giles to be punished in the murder of Brenda AvieMoreover , the lawyer of Giles is named Marilyn Burkhardt . The say lawyer locomote to question the use of the exsanguinous woman s prior statements against her thickening . She mentioned that using the give tongue to statements against her client is diminutive and improper . Allowing the statements of Giles former girlfriend to the police to be utilised during trial violated the right of Giles to confront a hear against him as accorded by the ConstitutionHowever , there were three calcium butterflys that spurned the verbalise argument of Giles . These coquets do not believe that Giles is empower to the implicit in(p) right to confront a sweetheart . gum gum olibanum , the counsel of Giles commented that the state of atomic number 20 is demanding to remove the guts from her client s right to a fair hearing (Yost , 2008 ,. 1 .

The state statement was channeled to the Justices by the lawyer of Giles At present time , there is a ruling that a defendant who kills a soulfulness to disallow him from giving testimony in act whitethorn not appear before the salute and corroborate to not include prior statements by the dead person . These ruling are limited points of situations that have nothing to do with the case of Giles . Since the witnesser is no longer available for footle examination , Justice Scalia , Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts split its comments that the prosecutors in California were allowing an open door for evidence that swallow be considered as not admissible (Yost 2008 ,. 1With that , Kennedy pointed out to the officials of California that it was like seeking a broad exception . It may affect the previous ruling of the court submitted in the year 2004 concerning the right of the defendant to confront his witness before the court . Finally , the said decision was penned by Justice Scalia thereby affirming the said right of a defendant to confront the witness in court through cross-examinationReferencesYost ,(22 April 2008 . Justices question use of dead woman s statements at trial . Washington Post ,. 1PAGEPAGE 2...If you passel to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper