Document: 128 S. Ct. 2678 (2008) Dwayne GILES, Petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA. No. 07-6053. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 22, 2008. Decided June 25, *2681 Marilyn G. Burkhardt, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner. Donald E. De Nicola, Respondent. Samuel Estreicher, New York, NY, James F. Flanagan, Columbia, SC, B. Ayer, Meir Feder, Jones Day, Washington, D.C., Edmund Brown Jr., Attorney General California, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant General, Manuel M. Medeiros, State Solicitor Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Kristofer Jorstad, Deputy DeNicola, Justice SCALIA delivered the opinion Court, except as to Part II-D-2. We consider whether a defendant forfeits his Sixth Amendment right confront witness against him when judge determines that wrongful act by made unavailable testify at trial. I On September 29, 2002, petitioner Giles shot ex-girlfriend, Brenda Avie, outside garage grandmother's house. No saw shooting, but Giles' niece heard what transpired from inside She and Avie speaking in conversational tones. then yelled "Granny" several times series gunshots sounded. grandmother ran standing near with gun hand. who had not been carrying weapon, six times. One wound was consistent Avie's holding her hand up time she shot, another having turned side, third while lying on ground. fled scene after shooting. He apprehended police about two weeks later charged murder. At trial, testified he acted self-defense. described jealous, said knew once man, seen threaten people knife, vandalized home car prior occasions. day came house threatened kill new girlfriend, earlier. also girlfriend spoke phone earlier day. house, went into retrieved gun, took safety off, started walking toward back door him, afraid something According Giles, closed eyes fired shots, did intend Avie. Prosecutors sought introduce statements officer responding domestic-violence report three before crying spoke, told accused an affair, began argue, grabbed shirt, lifted off floor, choke her. *2682 broke free fell punched face head, again, opened folding held it feet away her, if found cheating him. Over objection, trial court admitted these evidence under provision California law permits admission out-of-court describing infliction or threat physical injury declarant is are deemed trustworthy. Cal. Evid.Code Ann. § 1370 (West Supp.2008). A jury convicted first-degree appealed. While appeal pending, this decided Crawford 541 U.S. 36, 53-54, 124 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004), Confrontation Clause requires have opportunity witnesses give testimony cases where exception confrontation recognized founding. The Appeal unconfronted violate construed because doctrine forfeiture wrongdoing. 19 Rptr. 3d 843, 847 (2004) (officially depublished). It concluded forfeited committed murder which intentional criminal testify. affirmed same 40 4th 833, 837, 55 133, 152 P.3d 433, 435 (2007). granted certiorari. 552 ___, 976, 169 800 (2008). II provides "[i]n all prosecutions, shall enjoy ... be confronted him." contemplates makes testimonial will ordinarily present cross-examination, unavailable, introduced only cross-examine Crawford, U.S., 68, 1354. does dispute here, we accept without deciding, accusing assault were testimonial. But maintains (as Court) prohibit prosecutors introducing guarantee use witness's finds, case, rendered "most naturally read reference common law, admitting those exceptions established founding." Id., 54, therefore ask theory wrongdoing accepted founding-era right. previously acknowledged forms even though they unconfronted. See id., 56, n. 6, 62, first declarations speaker both brink death aware dying. See, e.g., King Woodcock, 1 Leach 500, 501-504, 168 Eng. *2683 Rep. 352, 353-354 (1789); Moody, 3 N.C. 31 (Super. & Eq. 1798); States Veitch, 28 Cas. 367, 367-368 (No. 16,614) (CC DC 1803); Commonwealth, 4 Va. 78, 80-81 (Gen.Ct.1817). make dying, so do fall within historic exception. second common-law doctrine, refer wrongdoing, permitted introduction "detained" "kept away" "means procurement" defendant. Lord Morley's Case, 6 How. St. Tr. 769, 771 (H.L.1666) ("detained"); Harrison's 12 851 (H.L.1692) ("made keep away"); Queen Scaife, 117 Q.B. 238, 242, 1271, 1273 (K.B.1851) ("kept see 2 W. Hawkins, Pleas Crown 425 (4th ed. 1762) (hereinafter Hawkins) (same); T. Peake, Compendium Law Evidence 62 (2d 1804) ("sent" away); Gilbert, 214 (1791) ("detained kept appearing means procurement prisoner"). has roots 1666 decision judges "detained prisoner," provided basis given coroner's inquest. Tr., 770-771. Courts commentators absence among grounds bail committal hearings conducted Marian statutes, directed justices peace take felony suspects persons bringing magistrate, certify court, supra, 43-44, 1354; J. Langbein, Prosecuting Crime Renaissance 10-12, 16-20 (1974). Hawkins 429. This class admissible them dead unable travel. Ibid. terms used define scope rule suggest applied engaged conduct designed prevent testifying. required back" Although there definitions "procure" "procurement" would merely require caused absence, other limit causality one bring result "procured." N. Webster, An American Dictionary English Language (1828) (defining "to contrive effect" (emphasis added)); ibid. get; gain; obtain; request, loan, effort, labor purchase"); Oxford 559 ed.1989) (def.I(3)) "[t]o devise care (an action proceeding); endeavour cause (mostly evil) person"). Similarly, term "means" could sweep fail appear, can connote rights uses intermediary purpose making absent. 9 516 ("[A] person intercedes influence order desired result"); 822 (1869) ("That through which, help end attained"). Cases treatises indicate purpose-based definition *2684 governed. number defendant's contrivance." Chitty, Practical Treatise Criminal 81 (1816) contrivance prisoner"); Phillipps, 165 (1814) out way Drayton Wells, 10 S.C.L. 409, 411 (S.C. 1819) opposite party"). phrase schemed "contrived." Contrivance commonly defined "inventing, devising planning," 47, "ingeniously endeavoring accomplishment anything," "the pass planning, scheming, stratagem," "[a]daption end; design, intention," Dictionary, 850.[1] 1858 treatise requirement more explicit still, stating "had prisoner, some prisoner's behalf, giving Powell, Practice 166 (1st 1858) added). wrongful-procurement invoked manner definition. no case although testifying, such offering bribe. B plain showing intended In suggested absent, done testifyingas typical involving accusatorial victimthe excluded unless dying-declaration appear argued admit Consider Woodcock. William Woodcock killing wife, Silvia, beaten left death. Magistrate Silvia Woodcock's account crime, oath, died 48 hours later. stated "[g]reat crime nature must always be, yet inquiry proceed upon rules evidence." Leach, Rep., 352. Aside presence said, "two species law: dying declaration *2685 received fatal blow; examination depositions may produced him" taken statutes. 501, 352-353 (footnote omitted). statement pursuant statutes unconfrontedthe brought examining prisoner contradicting facts contains." 502, 353. Thus, "apprehended state mortality inevitably oblige soon answer Maker truth falsehood assertions." 503, Depending credits, either instructed "in fact apprehension death," 504, 354, determined itself "quietly resigned submitting fate" evidence, East, 356 (1803). Dingler, 561, 383 (1791), test exclude victim. George Dingler wife Jane, suffered multiple stab wounds hospital days died. stabbing, Jane Dingler's depositionas oath"of circumstances attended outrage her." 383. attorney qualify examinations "have, entitled have, benefit cross-examination." 562, 384. prosecutor agreed, deposition should still "it best afford." 563, Relying "refused receive Many victims' insufficient die. Thomas John's East 357, 358 (P.C. 1790); Welbourn's 358, 360 1792); Woods, 762, 763 16,760) 1834); Lewis State, 17 Miss. 115, 120 (1847); Montgomery 11 Ohio 424, 425-426 (1842); Nelson 26 Tenn. 542, 543 Smith 9, 23 (1848). ground blame absenceeven establishing overwhelming. reporter comment strength defendant: "The independent information deceased, very pressing urgent prisoner." victim's included, limited to, obtained arsenic local doctor few became violently ill; paramour testifying poisoning wife; asked *2686 physician "whether discovered human stomach month death"; and, apparently satisfactory, tried hire burn down building containing wife's body. 10-11. If State's reading correct, others like admissible. Judges failed invoke sufficient apply dying-declarations failure, too, striking. presenting responsible difficult than putting government's chief. Yet attempt obtain wrongful-procurement-of-absence going often considerable trouble show victim believed recover. Va., (three called point); Gibson 111, 116-117 (Gen.Ct.1817) (testimony elicited witness); Anthony 265, 278-279 (1838) (doctor questioned expected fatality demeanor). offers explanation above cases. argues object grounds, hearsay grounds. Brief Respondent 23-24. found, however, rights. And distinction surprising one, courts founding large part 606 (6th 1787); Bacon, Abridgment 313 (1736). As plurality Dutton Evans, 400 74, 86, 91 210, 27 213 (1970), "[i]t seems apparent Amendment's evidentiary stem roots." dissent note authorities justified invoking maxim own wrong. 140-141 (1756) (if "shall never shelter himself evil Practices Witness, being Advantage Wrong"). amply shows, "wrong" "evil Practices" referred covering sort create intolerable incentive defendants bribe, intimidate, them. There nothing mysterious courts' refusal carry rationale further. notion strip Constitution deems essential fair judicial assessment guilty charged, sit well jury. akin, might say, "dispensing obviously guilty." *2687 C Not proposed plainly "exceptio[n] founding," jurisprudence since neverprior 1985 context deliberate tampering. addressed Reynolds States, 98 145, 25 244 (1879), where, hearing subpoenaed testify, government 148-150. appeal, absent "wrongful procurement," "is condition assert constitutional violated" "their supplied lawful way." 158. broad principles explain its holding. stated, example, "[t]he legitimate consequences acts," ibid., "has foundation" principle advantage wrong, outgrowth based honesty," 159. relied maxims done) sure. testimony. Court's indicated adopting rule. cited leading casesLord Scaifedescribed "content with" "long-established usage" principle, admissibility open doubt Case. Reynolds, 158-159. historical pedigree 1879 routinely prosecutions inculpated way. earliest identified litigants amici curiae preventing 1985. Rouco, 765 F.2d 983 (C.A.11). 1997, approved Federal Rule Evidence, "Forfeiture wrongdoing," applies "engaged acquiesced did, procure unavailability witness." Fed. Evid. 804(b)(6). "which codifies doctrine." Davis 547 813, 126 2266, 224 (2006). Every commentator intent mind particular unavailable." 5 Mueller Kirkpatrick, 8:134, p. 235 (3d ed.2007); Weinstein Berger, *2688 Weinstein's 804.03[7][b], 804-32 (J. McLaughlin ed., ed.2008); Brown, McCormick 176 ed.2006).[2] come dissent's claim knowledge emphatically modern view. LaFave, Substantive 5.2, 340 ed.2003). sum, our interpretation supported (1) most natural language law; (2) testifying; (3) law's uniform exclusion inculpatory victims (except awareness impending death) innumerable victim, shown testimony; (4) subsequent history applied. last highly persuasive; view conclusive. D evades force point claiming confronted. explains arguing understood depositionswhich confrontbut post, 2702-2703. That finding procurement, regard confrontation. agent attempted bribe witness, disappeared circumstances. contended "spirited, withdrawn us, gentleman [the witness] *2689 kind 851. allowed coroner read, 852, reason think examination.[3] reasoning reinforces conclusion depend "Mr. agents friends sessions, conveyed young man principal him," declared proved, conduce Mr. advantage." 835-836. treatise's justification inquests Wrong." 140 (1756). wrongfully detained profit "such Practices." proceedings (including Case) turn cross-examination general matter, 2, expressed early Rex Barber, Root 76 (Conn.Super.Ct.1775), "[o]ne White, justice grand-jury minutes testimony, sent Bullock, friend Barber's, instigation; petit-jury. relate White testified." Two Delaware cite proposition grand theory. 200, (a); 91, (m) (American 1824); Lewis, Del. 608, 609, (Ct. Quarter Sess. 1818). (Of course standard practice approximately 17th century secret, confrontation, learn *2690 advance. Beale, Bryson, Felman, Elston, Grand Jury 5.2 ed.2005); 8 Wigmore 2360, pp. 728-735 McNaughton rev.1961)).[4] Georgia articulation similarly suggests wrote Case "who examined Crown, "then read" evidence. Williams Ga. 402, 403 (1856). Its Crown" carried limit, indeed, adopted involved requirement, lacked one. Reynolds. set forth doctrine's application, begins analysis full description contained indication followed citation Casewhich, inquests, examinationssaying "seems England ever since." opinion's likewise unconditioned any confrontation: gives him; cannot complain competent supply place away.... [The Constitution] grants privilege voluntarily keeps away, insist privilege. If, therefore, their way, violated." mention paragraph need applied, supplied" supplied." reaffirmed understanding citing seeming Davis, testimonial, observing "one obtains *2691 confrontation," remanded instruction Indiana asked) determine remand properly raised so, meritorious," id. 834, 2266. sparse, light decisions single declining persuaded displace parsing aside, obvious problem amounts self-immolation. true, destroy narrow rule, broader well. Prior unavailability. specific render available, subject all.[5] Having destroyed issues thinly veiled invitation overrule adopt approach much different regime Roberts, 448 100 2531, 65 597 (1980), thinks policies underlying guarantee, regardless how historically understood. "basic purposes objectives" says, deprived rights, applicable law. Post, 2696-2697. sure favored result. aimed removing otherwise powerful themin words, grounded ability protect integrity proceedings." boundaries seem us intelligently fixed avoid repugnant system jury: whom considers (after less you, pronounced guilt) fair-trial lest judge-determined wrong.[6] *2692 Since certainly norm "forfeited" determination guilt, go far afield argue analogy 2697 (discussing prohibits murderer collecting insurance life inheritance estate); 2698 (noting many punish purpose). These analogies support propositions doubt: allocate property fit, punished, purpose, legislature "punish" acts stripping guilt proceeding jury, reliable larger argument, whatever "fair." role extrapolate words values behind it, enforce guarantees extent serve (in views) values. seeks fairness indeedbut (one confrontation) Englishmen. "does open-ended developed courts." 1354.[7] E closes pointing ignores particularly helpful women abusive relationshipsor least punishing abusers. suggests, Clause. Statements neighbors *2693 abuse intimidation, physicians receiving treatment excluded, all, rules, version event, puzzled devote peroration domestic Is suggestion (the Framers described) crimes, special, improvised, crimes frequently women? Domestic violence offense legislatures choose combat meansfrom increasing penalties adding resources investigation prosecution funding prevention campaigns. serious others, abridging arsenal. is, relevant separate reason. Acts dissuade resorting help, include officers cooperation prosecutions. Where relationship culminates murder, isolate stop reporting cooperating prosecution rendering doctrine. Earlier abuse, threats inquiry, ongoing not, charges, 2708, "knowledge-based intent." (Emphasis deleted.) irrelevant application error, remand. * decline approve unheard 200 years thereafter. judgment vacated, further inconsistent opinion. ordered. THOMAS, concurring. write separately adhere my implicate contested indistinguishable during questioning response Hammon Indiana, There, "a formalized dialogue"; "sufficiently formal resemble examinations" neither Mirandized nor custodial, accompanied similar indicia formality"; "there offer [Ms. Avie's] evade confrontation." 840, 2266 (THOMAS, J., concurring dissenting part). Nonetheless, respondent *2694 nontestimonial, ante, 2682; below noted "no dispute" issue, 841, 438 (2007); question presented, Petitioner i. Because accurately reflects applicability join vacating below. ALITO, opinion, clear that, am convinced issue here place. displeasure understandable, real concerns equivalent "witnesses." Const., Amdt. 6. Ms. falls category. assuming sake argument Clause, agree SOUTER, GINSBURG joins, part. sound II-D-2 demonstrates, Framing ratification equitable relevant, statement, was, reasonable risk untruth unconfronted, meant preclude testing provides. importance assessing placing prosecuted causes homicide extreme example. solely committing homicide, prove homicidal causing absence; killed probably killed. thing saving liability determinations begging case) distinct functions find preponderance (and statement), proof beyond doubt. Equity demands circularity forfeited, Cf. rather dispositive example record persuades me case. contrast between BREYER's careful tells calibrated finely enough here. revealed exchange simply *2695 focus occurred culminating act; today's significance Framing, operating circumstance. Examining commentary, reveals things count favor shows abuse. substantial degree thwart process thinking hold forfeited; practical boil measure hearsay, rejected (2004). material element intention normally satisfied inferred abuser classic relationship, including aid enforcement process. continuing sort, sense oppressing miraculously abandoned dynamics instant say fit anger. II-E thus fits equity supports. BREYER, STEVENS KENNEDY join, dissenting. bars un-cross-examined "testimonial" court. simultaneously exception: defendant, "wrongdoing," forfeit "on essentially grounds" (2006), again exception, involves who, former boyfriend (now, defendant) choked "opened knife," "threatened Ante, 2682 (opinion Court). Three later, To assertion, vindictive, aggressive, violent. rebut self-defense impeach witness' uncross-examined do) important underscore premised assumption, challenged With understanding, concludes view, has. Like majority, believe recognize *2696 start majority starts, 769 (H. 1666). House Lords "examinations" "might witnesses... travel." 770. Additionally, "witness coroner, 770-771 Later repeated ha[d] ill way," 868 1692), ha[d], fraudulent indirect means, procured hath proper withdraw himself," Fenwick's 13 537, 594 1696), resorted Ad. (Q. 1851), forth. Nineteenth-century thing. 158, (1879). For 1819 South Carolina party." 411. 1856 relying "examination "was 403. 1878, "if defendant's] complain" statement. defendant] on" "privilege foundation wrong honesty." sources "forfeiture wrongdoing" satisfies Crawford's "read law" "any exception" "established remaining precise metes bounds strong reasons concluding herereasons rooted history, creating great difficulties anomalies. First, setting cover (murder) else besides. murders "by prisoner" i.e., 771; indeed "ill practice," leads *2697 868; fairly call "contrivance way", 1273; "fraudulent means" keeping worse, direct 594; "absent" due killer likely "own All language. 214-215 (examinations Trial" proved scope. Second, rule's basic objectives indicates founding, writer assure 214-215. explained "foundation wrong." What greater "wrong," witness? "advantage" derive thereby self-defense? Third, related areas motivated treat similarly. beneficiary insured recovering policy. York Mut. Life Ins. Co. Armstrong, 591, 600, 877, 29 997 (1886) ("It reproach country, recover money payable party whose feloniously taken"). forbids recovery "feloniously kills insured, irrespective purpose." National Hood's Adm'r, 264 Ky. 516, 518, 94 S.W.2d 1022, 1023 (Ct.App.1936) added) ("no difference courts" matter). testator inherit will. Page, Wills 17.19, 999-1001 (2003). felonious design." Van Alstyne Tuffy, 103 Misc. 455, 459, N.Y.S. 173, 175 (1918); 1002 ("[T]his alike devisee manslaughter" omitted)); generally H. Hart A. Sacks, Legal Process: Basic Problems Making Application 76-94 (W. Eskridge P. Frickey eds.1994) so-called "slayer's rules"); Wade, Acquisition Property Willfully Killing AnotherA Statutory Solution, 49 Harv. L.Rev. 715, 716 (1936) ("[I]t adoption slayer acquiring desirable"). Fourth, presented difficulty demonstrating intent. *2698 murdering ex-girlfriend demands. put matter ago: "`man performs known produce experience presumed anticipated it.'" Allen 164 492, 496, 154, 41 528 (1896); Aguilar, 515 593, 613, 115 2357, 132 520 (1995) (SCALIA, dissenting) ("[T]he presume intends probable acts"); Williams, 18, 38 1961) ("There situation consequence desired. foreseen substantially certain"); ALI, Model Penal Code 2.02(2)(b)(ii) (1962) (a "knowingly" conduct" "he practically certain Restatement (Second) Torts 8A (1977) ("The word `intent' throughout denote actor desires act, believes it"). holds individual follow just achieve civil escape airline passenger blowing airplane insurance, flight. 5.2(a), 341 Suppose husband, H, knows assaulted W, gave police. Based W police, H possible assault. responsibility intentionally says angry Of course, assault; fact, stronger, weaker, applying Nor W's future it. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 410 526, 570, 93 1096, 35 475, 22 (1973) (Marshall, result) ("[P]erhaps oldest evidencethat actsis preference objectively measurable data over subjective intent"). tries overcome elementary legal logic rule" applies, motive, desire 2683-2684 (asserting describe "suggest testifying" *2699 "purpose-based definition... governed"). matters 2683. constitutes principle. Indeed, (rather intent), does, creates problems. assaults complained H's played major role, middling minor W? Who precisely passed critical moment? Romero, 2007-NMSC-013, 141 N.M. 403, 156 694, 702-703 (finding doubtful associated jury). Moreover, majority's insistence motive squared exception's basically ethical objective. able successfully "take[n] belief rises level probability. inequity consists exists purposeful, (i.e., knowledge), probabilistic. Fifth, anomalies aggravates existing incongruities. Contrast (a) subsequently threatens harm testifies, (b) rage. Under interpretation, (whose testifying) latter (who undoubtedly wrong) can. anomalous, applies. Now claims demonstrate, length damning detail behavior did crime. 643-645 (Apr. 1, 2003). remembers them) excited utterances impressions states (here petitioner's mind). dead, reply. incongruity arises ordinary rules. aggravate prohibiting (which contradict account), too focused so. California's authorize describes *2700 "infliction declarant," "statement" "made injury." (Supp.2008). "testimonial," perhaps nurse, formally officer, out. Again pre-existing confrontation-related 830, 5, ("[F]ormality utterance"). But, Again, Sixth, deny safeguards. area, cross-examine. permit significant alternative safeguards reliability exist. Those evolved time, K. 326 (2006) (discussion development rule); 102 ("[T]hese secure promotion growth evidence"), direction adequate assurance exists, see, 807 "Residual Exception"). Here, declarant's surrounding circumstances, themselves provide accuracy warrant 1370. More importantly, lowers barrier statements; admission. remain place; when, whether, enact exceptions, requirements limiting application. 2688, 2. lower allow flexibility revise advisable. exclusion, deprive freedom flexibility. III 17th-, 18th-, 19th-century review I, limits instances motivation away. 2681-2682. contrary, "Constitution acts." "legitimate consequences" mean "desired motive; *2701 encompass imputed consequences. wrong" benefits purpose. Rather act. numerous magistrate commitment statutes) 771. of" focuses (or in) doing Diaz 223 442, 32 250, 56 500 (1912), "by" accused), causation, 452, 250; Eureka Lake Yuba Canal Superior Cty., 116 410, 418, 429, 671 (1886). Motes 178 458, 473-474, 20 993, 44 1150 (1900), "with assent perfectly of, assenting hoped accomplish. Petitioner's implies unpersuasive. 26-28. purposefully, can, "cause," "bring about," "effect," (1828); Richardson, 1514 (1839) for; heed,... done; urge endeavor, manage acquire; obtain"). "contrivance" fares better. (citing, Chitty) prisoner")). Even contrived, devised planned, mind. Regardless, And, explained, actions may, desired, compared caused. sole authority expressly supports 166. written nearly 70 founding; *2702 conclusion; complete Were limitation, statements, Here deal bar statements. automatically Rather, leaves decide, via sufficiently admit. Given squarely requiring intent, say? draw 2684-2686. know instance drawn meaning contraryat plausible explanations absence. why (perhaps all) thought dead; tell 770-77 (Marian "dead travel"); 353 (1789) ("[I]f deponent die deposition] substituted room viva voce deponent, living, alone given, necessity fact"); Archbold, Summary Relative Pleading 85 (1822) (where "dead," "unable travel," "may deceased virtue death, Historical deposition, providing witness. (Where "must cross witness" 605-606 1787) Hawkins); 78-80; Bishop, Procedure §§ 1194-1195, 1020-1022 ed.1913) Bishop); Haw., 602. exception; improper *2703 helped in. 383, 384 top barrister utterly impossible, [at deposition], read"). wonder refers directly Common-law highlights demonstrate pointKing Dingler. 2684-2685. explains, each cases, stood wife. refused (statements died) taken, basis. Instead, declaration. depending account, "under 354; (1803) (reprinted 2004). immediate excluded. support. 2685 (citing (1848)). true none equivalent. points. certain, up.) occurs almost exclusively context, retaliate incident. ago, *2704 futile hale abusers Rhodes, 61 453, 459 (1868) (per curiam) ("We inflict society raising curtain privacy, lesser trifling violence"). possibility old records available firm conclusions. "continuing confusion eighteenth underscores primitive undertheorized was." Origins Adversary Trial 248 explanationthat improperly depositionprovides conclude foreign, contradicts traditional supporting 39 (relying "necessarily act" (internal quotation marks ("the conduct, result"). next points line murdered witness'"dying declaration." conclusion. extremity" "when every hope world gone: silenced, induced considerations speak truth." 353; Drummond, 337, 338, 271, 272 (1784) mind, impressed awful idea approaching dissolution, sanction equally feel solemn God oath"); 619, 10; Mattox 237, 243-244, 15 409 (1895). notes trying meet strict "dying declaratio[n]" requirements. 2686. believes, securing simpler explanation, parties declaration" already mentioned. deposition. irrelevant. proper, unnecessary; improper, powerless help. lawyers admitted) admitted), both. 383-384 "as *2705 [Marian] statutes" or, alternative, conscious dissolution"); Radbourne, 457, 46-461, 330, 332 (1787) People Restell, Hill 289 (N.Y. 1842) Chitty 79-81. little add "forfeiture." reason, declarations" existed, 352; 356, involving, wills paternity disputes, Wigmore, 1431, 277, Chadbourn rev.1974) 18th 19th centuries). 245-246, nn. 291, 292 (at existed oath-based cross-examination-based rationales becoming dominant around Gallanis, Rise Modern Law, 84 Iowa 499, 516-550 (1999))). upshot fails insisted (based knowledge) point. IV arguments response. 2688-2691. goes, in, 2684-2687. concludes, (unconfronted) purposely got rid 2698. cards foundation; built silence subject. cites 2689 3, parliamentary attainder proceeding; Parliament voted upon. 537. Hence "hath magistrate," (remarks Lovel), 2688-2689, coroner. 852. Coroner's special status sometimes *2706 despite lack cross-examination. survive Atlantic voyage. 1354 (early "flatly statements"). primarily relies, 16, sentences Barber." Root, 76. "sent Barber's "instigation" "court White's possible. latter. Best, Principles 467, 473, (e) 1883) (listing Barber "of preliminary magistrate" "evidence admitted, cross-examination"); 1194-1197, 1020-1024 (explaining way" otherwise," "[f]amiliar illustration" Barber); Stephen, Digest 161, Note, (1902) offered present"). final authority, (1856), 2689-2690, "examination" magistrate." Such Greene Lumpkin, 99 (1835) (describing procedures magistrate's Georgia); M'Kinney, Civil Officer (1850) accuser accused, cross-examining witnesses"). (admitting Diaz, 449, 250 Mattox, 240, 337 Motes, 470-471, 993 (same). changed ancient rulein They now Carlson, 1346, 1357-1360 (C.A.8 1976) so); Mastrangelo, 693 269 (C.A.2 1982); (C.A.11 1985); dates indicate, recent development. evidently finds elephant change acceptableas I. Without meaningful modernday Why strain hard what, comparatively speaking, gnat nonexistent that)? *2707 weakness erects (not 2688. shown, 2682-2683. theory" prevented, prevent, pointed out, proves (there actions, purpose) arise redundant useless 2688-2689. "conclusive," "innumerable cases" "unconfronted victims" referring 2685. unhelpful 2690. Finally, "subsequent history" questions begin until 1980's. 2692-2693. begun swallow late 1970's 1980's, considered gnat. better handful differently. reach conclusions contemporary guess forfeiture, reported why, II, other, conclusive objects aspect admitted. 2693. puts "akin `dispensing trial.'" (quoting 1354). findings kind. conspiracy, initial conspiracy co-conspirator Bourjaily 483 171, 175-176, 107 2775, 97 144 (1987) concerned *2708 proponent wins loses merits, Rules satisfied"). forced "sometimes" necessary "judge inquire ruling." 2691-2692, let 2691-2693. Ordinarily (knowledge-based) amount hear. overcoming objection issue. control exceptions. not? interest served, lets knowing longer acting anger revenge? appears "purpose" ends presumption transform knowledge-based intentat issue; area arise. part, says: "[The requisite] anger." 2682. play protection Doing apart effect "purpose." Consequently, formulation, simple across board. V implicated abuser's attacks; uncommon occurrence. Each year, results 1,500 deaths million injuries; accounts portion homicides; typically violence; *2709 reluctant Bureau Statistics, Homicide trends http:// www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/ relationshiptab.htm visited 23, 2008, Clerk file); Dept. Health Human Services, Centers Disease Control Prevention, Center Injury Prevention Control, Costs Intimate Partner Violence Against Women (2003); Websdale, Understanding 207 (1999); Lininger, Batterers 747, 751, 768-769 (2005). Regardless threats, violence, ultimately batterers retaliatory half 30 percent prosecution). insists probabilistic partner conviction taking ones. "domestic violence" "notoriously susceptible intimidation coercion ensure trial." 832-833, concern "[w]hen occurs, windfall." replied additional breaks promise implicit treatment, windfall. administrative consideration, Insofar SOUTER's presumes respects, respectfully dissent. NOTES [1] asserts "contrived, planned victim" 2701 J.). contriving phrase" "`by procurement'" "may, caused." 2701-2702 resolve ambiguity substituting added.) [2] Only code contain Crawford) allow. Seven forfeiting duplicate federal 804(b)(6) (2001); 804(b)(5) (2004); N.D. Pa. (2005); Vt. (2003) (identical excludes acquiescence); Mich. (substitutes encouraged" in"). terms. 804(B)(6) (2008); 1350 provisions "procured" Haw. 804(b)(7) Md. Cts. Jud. Proc.Code 10-901 (Lexis 2006) discussed, traditionally Maryland's "requir[ing] [the] misconduct undertaken testify." 6A McLain, Maryland 804(6):1, 230 Supp.2007-2008). cast assertion problems proof. lone text reaches broadly Oregon 2005. 2005 Ore. Laws 1232, Ch. 458 (S.B. 287). [3] Wrongful 537 (H.C. proceeding. speakers bound 46, tampering trials: "[W]here stand lives, hath, himself, regularly do; read; suppose, humble submission, case...." Lovel). responds "`a magistrate,'" 2705. Perhaps "this case"Fenwick's 591-592. [4] writing decision, examination. 1883); 161 (1902); 1197, 1024 ed.1913). understanding. [5] attempts reconcile saying "broad enough" "`exception' `established founding,'" 2696, reaching misconduct. what? contends inquiry. [6] identifies circumstance onein outcome goes existence incriminating co-conspirators 801(d)(2)(E). (1987), "falls firmly exception"the 66, overruled. quite furtherance be) pertain unusual. ruling. adoptwhen, needed proceedings, longstanding precedent, expansive [7] introduce. 2699-2700. true. Just harmful speedy asymmetrical Constitution's criminal-trial anomaly, conferring privileges innocent. that.

Category: 0