A defendant's right to confront accusers: How far does it extend?

The Supreme Court's answer could affect some murder, domestic-abuse, and child-molestation cases.

from the April 22, 2008 edition

Page 2 of 3

Page 1 | 2 | Page 3

The current case involves a California man, Dwayne Giles, who shot and killed his former girlfriend, Brenda Avie. At trial, Mr. Giles testified that Ms. Avie had a history of violence and had threatened to kill both him and his new girlfriend.

When Avie showed up uninvited at his grandmother's house, Giles told the jury that he shot her because he thought she had a gun and was about to shoot him.

The prosecutors at Giles's murder trial portrayed Giles as the one with a history of violence. They did it by calling a police officer to testify about a domestic-abuse report filed by Avie three weeks prior to her death.

Avie called police on Sept. 5, 2002. When the officers arrived, she told them that Giles was an abusive boyfriend who had choked her, punched her, and threatened to kill her if he ever caught her being unfaithful.

The statement was important to prosecutors because it suggested Giles had a predisposition to commit violent crimes. It offered jurors a different perspective than Giles's suggestion that he acted in self-defense.

Giles was convicted and sentenced to 50 years to life in prison.

The issue on appeal was whether the former girlfriend's statement should have been excluded from the trial. Since Avie wasn't available for cross-examination on the full meaning, context, and veracity of her statement to police, the statement should not have been presented to the jury, Giles's lawyers argued.

Prosecutors responded that since it was Giles who made Avie unavailable to testify by murdering her, he should not be permitted to benefit from his crime. They argued that by killing Avie, he forfeited his Sixth Amendment confrontation right.

The California Supreme Court agreed with the prosecutors.

In their brief to the US Supreme Court, lawyers for Giles say that, if upheld, the California decision would unravel the high court's 2004 landmark opinion that strengthened the protections of the confrontation clause.

It isn't enough that a defendant caused the unavailability of a witness at trial, Giles's lawyers say. Giles had to specifically target the victim as part of a witness-tampering scheme to prevent her testimony at trial, they say.

Since Giles did not shoot Avie to silence her, the lawyers say, his confrontation rights must remain intact.

1 | Page 2 | 3 | Next Page