The Supreme Court Stands Up For Wife-Beaters
The Supreme Court just killed evidence-based prosecution, a prime way of bringing domestic abusers to justice, writes South Bronx public defender David Feige, on Slate:
One of the peculiar realities of domestic violence cases is thatóabused or notóthe complaining witnesses often don't want their loved ones prosecuted. Thanks to the Supreme Court, many more of those victims are about to get their wish. This week's decision in Crawford v. Washington , which reversed the assault conviction of Michael Crawfordósentenced to 14 1/2 years in prison for stabbing a man he believed had tried to rape his wifeówas overtly about the Constitution's confrontation clause. But the ruling will radically change the prosecution of domestic violence cases throughout the country, empowering complainants to resist the demands of prosecutors and limiting the number of cases that proceed with unwilling witnesses.It is not uncommon for alleged victims and prosecutors to have divergent agendas. This divergence can become particularly acute when prosecutors proceed with a case despite an alleged victim's desires. Prosecutors are, of course, within their rights to do thisóthere is no question that once an arrest is made, it is up to the state to prosecute or not, regardless of a victim's wishesóthat's why criminal actions are captioned the People v. Someone or the United States of America v. Someone Else . But while pursuing a prosecution despite the express wishes of the alleged victim is rare in the average case, in domestic violence cases it's commonplace.
Not any more!
Your headline and article seem inexplicably biased. The headline should really read "court stands up for accused wife beaters", and your statement "the court just killed evidenced-based prosecution" should have fear quotes around "evidence-based". Yes, it's inconvenient when the court decides that the constitution applies even to those accused of crimes. I think it's worthwhile, though, even though that does make things more difficult for law enforcement. The quote in the article from Scalia seemed most appropriate: "Admitting statements deemed reliable by a judge is fundamentally at odds with the right of confrontation. Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to dispensing with jury trial because a defendant is obviously guilty. This is not what the Sixth Amendment prescribes."
Ron at March 16, 2004 12:22 PM
Well, I dislike wife beaters as much as anyone.
BUT, it looks to me more like the Court standing up for a witness's right to decline to take part in a criminal trial.
It is unfortunate that many domestic abuse victims are reluctant to teastify, but the way to change that is by education and by persuasion, not by dragging them against their will into court and forcing them to give evidence. What value is evidence that has been extracted by cooercion -- it will be inherently flawed at best, and an outright lie (and well deserved) in the worst case. In the end prosecutors and the courts will have just wasted their time. If this kind of evidence (forced testimony against the witness's will) is all they have, they might as well just forget about it and move on to something they have a chance of winning.
Kim L. Ground at March 23, 2004 11:21 AM