WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday ruled against a defendant in a murder trial who wanted to exclude the dying victim's identifying statements because the accused shooter had no chance to cross-examine the victim.
The court voted 6-2 that when the statements are made to police officers who are trying to deal with an "ongoing emergency," they can be admitted at trial without violating the Constitution's mandate that the accused have the chance to confront the witnesses against them.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the court's majority opinion over a furious dissent from Justice Antonin Scalia.
It is hard to imagine anyone interested in pursuing justice to ignore the dying words of the victim. However, when I tried to separate emotion from the decision, I did find a small allowance for if the victim was confused or so near death that they may not communicate clearly. Neither of those seemed to apply to this. Scalia's comments were: "Today's tale...is so transparently false that professing to believe it demeans this institution." Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a separate, milder, dissent.
No comments:
Post a Comment