Opinion ID: 1269987
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Confrontation Right and Forfeiture by Wrongdoing

Text: The Confrontation Clause bars the admission of out-of-court testimonial statements unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to examine the witness. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). In Crawford the United States Supreme Court said, [w]here testimonial statements are at issue, the only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is the one the Constitution actually prescribes: confrontation. Id. at 68-69, 124 S.Ct. 1354. There is a narrow exception to the confrontation right, referred to as forfeiture by wrongdoing, which extinguishes confrontation claims on essentially equitable grounds. . . . Id. at 62, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (citing Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 158-59, 25 L.Ed. 244 (1879)). The forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception is aimed at defendants who intentionally interfere with the judicial process. The Supreme Court has said that [W]hen defendants seek to undermine the judicial process by procuring or coercing silence from witnesses and victims, the Sixth Amendment does not require courts to acquiesce. Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 833, 126 S.Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006). The Court has also said that [w]hile defendants have no duty to assist the State in proving their guilt, they do have the duty to refrain from acting in ways that destroy the integrity of the criminal-trial system. Id. The Supreme Court first addressed the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception in Reynolds, a case about deliberate witness tampering. The federal prosecutor presented evidence that George Reynolds, who was charged with bigamy, had deliberately kept his second wife away from the family home when a deputy sought to serve her with a subpoena. Reynolds, 98 U.S. at 148-50. When the deputy twice attempted to locate Reynolds' second wife to deliver the subpoena, Reynolds refused to disclose her location. Id. By the time of trial, the prosecution had still not succeeded in locating Reynolds' second wife. Id. Because of the second wife's unavailability, the district court allowed the prosecution to introduce testimony of Reynolds' second wife from Reynolds' earlier trial. See id. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that admission of the prior statements did not violate Reynolds' right to confront witnesses at trial. Id. at 158. The Court held that when a witness is absent by the defendant's own wrongful procurement, the defendant is in no condition to assert that his constitutional rights have been violated if the witness's evidence is supplied in some lawful way. Id. at 158. The Supreme Court recently analyzed the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception at length in Giles v. California, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008). Dwayne Giles was charged with first-degree murder in the shooting death of his ex-girlfriend. Id. at ___, 128 S.Ct. at 2681. At Giles' trial, the district court allowed the State to introduce statements that the victim had made to a police officer responding to a domestic-violence report approximately three weeks before the homicide. Id. at ___, 128 S.Ct. at 2681. The California Supreme Court affirmed Giles' conviction, holding that the defendant had forfeited his right to confront the victim because he had committed the murder for which he was on trial, and it was his intentional criminal act that made the victim unavailable to testify. Id. at ___, 128 S.Ct. at 2682 (citing People v. Giles, 40 Cal.4th 833, 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 133, 152 P.3d 433, 435 (2007)). The Court granted Giles' writ of certiorari and reversed, stating that the State must prove that the defendant has in mind the particular purpose of making the witness unavailable. Id. at ___, 128 S.Ct. at 2687-88 (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the California state courts had not considered Giles' intent, having found intent irrelevant to the forfeiture exception, the Court remanded for further proceedings. Id. at ___, 128 S.Ct. at 2693. Applying the foregoing principles to this case, it is evident and undisputed that S.T.'s grand jury testimony was both testimonial and unconfronted. See Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (holding that grand jury testimony is testimonial). Therefore, this case turns on the applicability of the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception. As a practical matter, after Giles, the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception requires the State to prove (1) that the declarant-witness is unavailable, (2) that the defendant engaged in wrongful conduct, (3) that the wrongful conduct procured the unavailability of the witness and (4) that the defendant intended to procure the unavailability of the witness. See Giles, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. at 2687-88; id. at ___, 128 S.Ct. at 2694-95 (Souter, J., concurring); Fields, 679 N.W.2d at 347; State v. Wright (Wright III), 726 N.W.2d 464, 480 (Minn.2007). [1] We have assumed that the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof applies to the State's burden of proof. Wright III, 726 N.W.2d at 479 n. 7.