{"id":1588,"date":"2011-04-05T02:39:27","date_gmt":"2011-04-05T09:39:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/amicuscuria.com\/wordpress\/?p=1588"},"modified":"2011-04-14T02:43:52","modified_gmt":"2011-04-14T09:43:52","slug":"crawford-bolsters-6th-amendment-objections","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/amicuscuria.com\/wordpress\/crawford-bolsters-6th-amendment-objections\/","title":{"rendered":"Crawford Bolsters 6th Amendment Objections"},"content":{"rendered":"

A US Supreme Court decision (Crawford v. Washington) is analyzed in an article by R. Michael Cassidy of Boston College Law School (michael.cassidy@bc.edu). (cc) 11-1-2006<\/strong><\/p>\n

Reconsidering Spousal Privileges after Crawford<\/a> <\/strong><\/p>\n

Be sure to read this very interesting and instructive article.<\/strong><\/p>\n

However, for Washington State residents, read the following law as well:<\/p>\n

RCW 5.60.060<\/a><\/p>\n

A recent US Supreme Court decision bolsters 6th Amendment challenges to\u00a0hearsay exceptions. \u00a0A distinction between ‘testimonial’ and ‘excited utterance’ statements as exceptions to the “hearsay” rules of evidence, especially those in 911 calls, is important in this analysis. \u00a0This will have a profound impact on many domestic violence prosecutions.<\/div>\n
.<\/div>\n
Equally interesting are the many glib assumptions the author makes in favor of a feminist prosecutorial slant in DV cases. \u00a0e.g. A typical sentiment in the article is contained in the following excerpt:<\/div>\n
.<\/div>\n
\n

“Police\u00a0officers put their lives at risk by responding to a victim\u2019s call for help;\u00a0having \u00a0invoked\u00a0the resources of society,\u00a0domestic violence victims\u00a0have forfeited the right to exercise a\u00a0the resources of society, domestic violence victims have forfeited the right to exercise a\u00a0veto over how society decides to respond to the threat once it has been exposed.” <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong> <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

(I’m a loser, baby…so why don’t you kill me?)<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong> <\/strong> <\/strong> <\/strong> <\/strong> <\/strong> <\/strong> <\/strong> <\/strong> <\/strong> <\/strong> <\/strong> <\/strong> <\/strong> <\/strong> <\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

young Ayn Rand, author and collectivism refugee<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/em> <\/em> <\/em> <\/em> <\/em> <\/em> <\/em>This reminds one of Ayn Rand’s disdain for presumptions in favor of the ‘collective’. She believed the concept was an artifice undermining individual freedoms, choice, and association. A close reading of the article reveals echoes of why she viewed ‘collectivism’ with suspicion.<\/span><\/em><\/strong>
\n