Giles v. California

2008-06-25

Headline: Court narrows when prosecutors may use a murder victim’s prior police statements, holding forfeiture requires proof the defendant intended to keep the witness from testifying, changing evidence rules in violent‑crime trials.

Holding:

Real World Impact:

Limits when prosecutors can use a victim’s police statements without cross‑examination.
Requires judges to find defendant intended to block a witness before admitting statements.
Gives state courts space to hold new hearings on defendants’ intent.

Topics: right to face witnesses, domestic violence, police statements, criminal trial evidence

Summary

Background

On September 29, 2002, a man shot his ex‑girlfriend outside his grandmother’s house. The victim had earlier told police that he had threatened and assaulted her. At trial the defendant said he acted in self‑defense. The state introduced the victim’s earlier statements to a police officer, even though she did not testify, under California evidence law. A jury convicted, and state courts said the defendant forfeited his right to face the witness because his act made her unavailable.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court examined whether a historic common‑law exception allowed judges to admit unconfronted testimonial statements when a defendant caused a witness’s absence. Reading founding‑era and later authorities, the Court concluded the old forfeiture rule required the defendant to intend to prevent the witness from testifying. The Court relied on Crawford, Reynolds, and modern federal rule language to hold intent is required. The Court vacated the California decision and remanded so the state courts may consider whether the defendant had that intent.

Real world impact

The ruling narrows when prosecutors can use a dead or absent victim’s prior statements without cross‑examination. It makes judges consider the defendant’s state of mind about blocking testimony before admitting such evidence. Because several Justices questioned whether the statement was testimonial, the Court left open other legal paths and sent the case back for further proceedings.

Dissents or concurrances

Some Justices (Thomas, Alito) doubted whether the victim’s police statement was testimonial at all; Justice Breyer (dissenting) argued a broader rule should apply and that knowledge of the witness’s likely absence can suffice.