High Court Limits Domestic Abuse Crime Reports as Trial Testimony
Out-of-court statements can't be used to bring charges, justices say, but a call to 911 can.
By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer
June 20, 2006
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court made it harder Monday to prosecute cases of domestic violence, ruling that a crime-scene report detailing a woman's claims of being beaten by her husband cannot be used against him at his trial unless she testifies in court.
In an 8-1 decision, the court said the use of such statements would violate a defendant's right to confront witnesses in court.
ADVERTISEMENT
Monday's ruling is the second in two years to sharply limit the power of police and prosecutors to use out-of-court statements in cases of domestic violence. But in a separate ruling Monday, a unanimous court agreed that 911 calls can be used in such trials.
Victims of such abuse are often unwilling to testify against their alleged abusers. In recent years, prosecutors have relied on their words in crime reports or in police station interviews to bring charges in court.
Until two years ago, the Supreme Court had said that reliable out-of-court statements could be used as evidence when witnesses were not available. This allowed for the use of such statements to prosecute cases of domestic violence.
But Justice Antonin Scalia has insisted the court should uphold the 6th Amendment as it is written. It says, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him."
Following Scalia's lead, the court in 2004 threw out the courtroom use of a woman's recorded statement given at a police station. Since she was a "witness," she must testify in court, the justices said in Crawford vs. Washington.
On Monday, the court went a step further and ruled that a crime-scene report also must be excluded.
This case began in February 2003 when police were called to the home of Amy and Herschel Hammon in Peru, Ind. The officers found a frightened woman on the front porch.
At first, she said she was "OK" and "nothing was the matter." But after an officer spotted broken glass in the living room, Amy Hammon described how her husband, in a rage, had thrown lamps, punched her and thrown her to the floor.
She later refused to testify against him, but prosecutors read her statement to the judge. Based on this evidence, Herschel Hammon was found guilty of domestic battery and the Indiana courts upheld his conviction.
But the Supreme Court overturned the conviction Monday.
Amy Hammon's statement was in essence an accusation of criminal wrongdoing and must be tested at trial, Scalia said in an opinion written for the court. The crime-scene report cannot serve as a "substitute for live testimony," he said.
However, the court took an opposite view regarding emergency calls to a 911 line. These are like a "cry for help," Scalia said, and they may be used in court so long as they are reports of an "ongoing emergency."
In this second case, the justices upheld the conviction of Adrian M. Davis for violating an order to stay away from an ex-girlfriend. Michelle McCottry, who lived south of Seattle, placed a frantic call to a 911 operator.
"He's here jumping on me again," she said in the recorded call. She reported Davis' name and was told police were on the way.
By the time they arrived, Davis was gone. But he was arrested and charged with a felony. McCottry did not testify, but a prosecutor played a tape of the 911 call to the jury, and Davis was convicted.
He appealed, and on Monday, the high court upheld his conviction in Davis vs. Washington because, Scalia said, an emergency report differs from the testimony of a witness.
"No witness goes into court to proclaim an emergency and seek help," said Scalia, who wrote the opinion in both cases.
The court drew a fine line that may be hard to apply in future cases.
For example, if the 911 operator had asked the woman a series of detailed questions, her replies would become like crime testimony, and therefore must be excluded from a trial.
But the emergency report itself is not testimony and can be used as evidence, he said.
Justice Clarence Thomas said he would have upheld the convictions in both cases. The officer who went to the Hammons' house was investigating a crime, not preparing a witness, and the woman's words should be used as evidence, Thomas said.
He said Scalia's opinion sets a standard that "is neither workable nor a targeted attempt" to stop abuses of the 6th Amendment.
By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer
June 20, 2006
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court made it harder Monday to prosecute cases of domestic violence, ruling that a crime-scene report detailing a woman's claims of being beaten by her husband cannot be used against him at his trial unless she testifies in court.
In an 8-1 decision, the court said the use of such statements would violate a defendant's right to confront witnesses in court.
ADVERTISEMENT
Monday's ruling is the second in two years to sharply limit the power of police and prosecutors to use out-of-court statements in cases of domestic violence. But in a separate ruling Monday, a unanimous court agreed that 911 calls can be used in such trials.
Victims of such abuse are often unwilling to testify against their alleged abusers. In recent years, prosecutors have relied on their words in crime reports or in police station interviews to bring charges in court.
Until two years ago, the Supreme Court had said that reliable out-of-court statements could be used as evidence when witnesses were not available. This allowed for the use of such statements to prosecute cases of domestic violence.
But Justice Antonin Scalia has insisted the court should uphold the 6th Amendment as it is written. It says, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him."
Following Scalia's lead, the court in 2004 threw out the courtroom use of a woman's recorded statement given at a police station. Since she was a "witness," she must testify in court, the justices said in Crawford vs. Washington.
On Monday, the court went a step further and ruled that a crime-scene report also must be excluded.
This case began in February 2003 when police were called to the home of Amy and Herschel Hammon in Peru, Ind. The officers found a frightened woman on the front porch.
At first, she said she was "OK" and "nothing was the matter." But after an officer spotted broken glass in the living room, Amy Hammon described how her husband, in a rage, had thrown lamps, punched her and thrown her to the floor.
She later refused to testify against him, but prosecutors read her statement to the judge. Based on this evidence, Herschel Hammon was found guilty of domestic battery and the Indiana courts upheld his conviction.
But the Supreme Court overturned the conviction Monday.
Amy Hammon's statement was in essence an accusation of criminal wrongdoing and must be tested at trial, Scalia said in an opinion written for the court. The crime-scene report cannot serve as a "substitute for live testimony," he said.
However, the court took an opposite view regarding emergency calls to a 911 line. These are like a "cry for help," Scalia said, and they may be used in court so long as they are reports of an "ongoing emergency."
In this second case, the justices upheld the conviction of Adrian M. Davis for violating an order to stay away from an ex-girlfriend. Michelle McCottry, who lived south of Seattle, placed a frantic call to a 911 operator.
"He's here jumping on me again," she said in the recorded call. She reported Davis' name and was told police were on the way.
By the time they arrived, Davis was gone. But he was arrested and charged with a felony. McCottry did not testify, but a prosecutor played a tape of the 911 call to the jury, and Davis was convicted.
He appealed, and on Monday, the high court upheld his conviction in Davis vs. Washington because, Scalia said, an emergency report differs from the testimony of a witness.
"No witness goes into court to proclaim an emergency and seek help," said Scalia, who wrote the opinion in both cases.
The court drew a fine line that may be hard to apply in future cases.
For example, if the 911 operator had asked the woman a series of detailed questions, her replies would become like crime testimony, and therefore must be excluded from a trial.
But the emergency report itself is not testimony and can be used as evidence, he said.
Justice Clarence Thomas said he would have upheld the convictions in both cases. The officer who went to the Hammons' house was investigating a crime, not preparing a witness, and the woman's words should be used as evidence, Thomas said.
He said Scalia's opinion sets a standard that "is neither workable nor a targeted attempt" to stop abuses of the 6th Amendment.
posted by BJMe at 10:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home