Opinion ID: 2047878
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Inconsistent Confrontation Clause rulings

Text: I conclude that submission to a three-judge panel is warranted because defendant and the codefendant received contradictory rulings on the identical Confrontation Clause issue. They were tried jointly before a single jury in the courtroom of Judge Diane Hathaway. Judge Hathaway declared one of the witnesses for the prosecution unavailable after the witness proved uncooperative on the stand. The prosecutor was then allowed to use the witness's preliminary examination testimony as substantive evidence against both defendants. Both defendant and codefendant Clark had fully cross-examined this witness at the preliminary examination. It should be noted that both defendants apparently engaged in witness intimidation tactics that likely caused the witness to freeze on the stand. After murdering the victim, the defendants threatened to harm the witness and her children if she informed the police about what she saw. Further, during the codefendant's preliminary examination, his girlfriend threatened this witness by making a hand motion simulating a slit throat. In addition, defendant overtly glared at the witness while she attempted to testify at trial. [1] After the jury convicted both defendants of first-degree murder, defendant retained another attorney and moved for a new trial. When Judge Diane Hathaway recused herself, the case was transferred by blind draw to Judge Michael Hathaway. The basis for defendant's motion for a new trial was his inability to cross-examine the witness who was declared unavailable. Judge Michael Hathaway initially ruled that any error was harmless and denied defendant's motion. Likewise, Judge Diane Hathaway denied the codefendant's motion for a new trial, which motion was based on the identical confrontation argument. Like defendant, the codefendant claimed that his confrontation rights were violated when the prosecution's witness was ruled unavailable at trial and her preliminary examination testimony was thereafter read into the record. Judge Diane Hathaway ruled that the codefendant was not denied his right to confrontation because his misbehavior rendered the witness unavailable. Judge Michael Hathaway, however, ultimately reached a directly contrary conclusion, and ruled that defendant's confrontation rights were violated. The Court of Appeals should review the matter and resolve the apparent contradiction. In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, ___, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 1370, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), the United States Supreme Court stated that the rule of forfeiture by wrongdoing... extinguishes confrontation claims on essentially equitable grounds.... The prosecutor's claim that defendant (and the codefendant) forfeited their Sixth Amendment rights to confront their accuser by continually intimidating the witness warrants plenary consideration, especially where it resulted in contradictory rulings between the codefendants who had alleged precisely the same claim of confrontation violation. [2]