Giles v. California
128 S. Ct. 2678 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause forfeiture by wrongdoing exception applies only when the defendant engaged in conduct designed to prevent a witness from testifying. The mere fact that the defendant's wrongful act made a witness unavailable is insufficient to trigger forfeiture.
Facts:
- Dwayne Giles and Brenda Avie were in a romantic relationship.
- Approximately three weeks before her death, Avie reported to a police officer that Giles had choked her, punched her, and threatened her with a knife.
- On September 29, 2002, Avie went to the home of Giles' grandmother, where Giles was present.
- Giles' niece, who was inside the house, heard Giles and Avie speaking, then heard Avie yell "Granny" several times, followed by a series of gunshots.
- Giles shot Avie six times, killing her. Avie was not carrying a weapon.
- Giles fled the scene and was apprehended by police about two weeks later.
Procedural Posture:
- Dwayne Giles was charged with murder and tried in California superior court, which is a trial court.
- Over Giles' objection, the trial court admitted out-of-court statements made by the victim, Brenda Avie, to a police officer.
- A jury convicted Giles of first-degree murder.
- Giles appealed to the California Court of Appeal, an intermediate appellate court, which affirmed the conviction.
- The Court of Appeal held that Giles had forfeited his right to confront Avie because his intentional criminal act (murder) made her unavailable to testify.
- Giles appealed to the California Supreme Court, the state's highest court, which also affirmed the conviction on the same forfeiture-by-wrongdoing grounds.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Giles' petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Confrontation Clause's forfeiture by wrongdoing exception permit the introduction of a witness's unconfronted testimonial statements if the defendant's wrongful act made the witness unavailable, but without a showing that the defendant acted with the specific intent of preventing the witness from testifying?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
No. The forfeiture by wrongdoing exception to the Confrontation Clause applies only when a defendant's wrongful conduct was undertaken with the specific purpose of preventing a witness from testifying. Tracing the doctrine to its common-law roots at the time of the Founding, the Court found that the exception was applied to defendants who 'detained' or 'kept away' a witness 'by means or procurement.' This language, and the way historical cases applied it, indicates a requirement of intent, not just causation. Cases from that era consistently excluded a murder victim's unconfronted statements unless they qualified as dying declarations, even though the defendant was obviously the cause of the witness's unavailability. To allow forfeiture based solely on causation would create an intolerable incentive for defendants to silence witnesses and would be akin to dispensing with a jury trial because a judge has already determined the defendant is guilty of the act that made the witness unavailable. The Court remanded the case for the California courts to consider whether Giles killed Avie with the required intent to stop her from testifying, noting that a history of domestic violence intended to isolate a victim could be relevant to that inquiry.
Dissenting - Justice Breyer
Yes. A defendant who wrongfully and intentionally renders a witness unavailable for trial forfeits their right to confrontation, regardless of whether preventing testimony was their specific purpose. The dissent argues that the common-law language of 'by means or procurement' is broad enough to cover any wrongful act that causes a witness's absence. The equitable foundation of the rule—that no one should profit from their own wrong—supports applying it to a murderer who benefits by silencing their victim. Requiring proof of a specific motive to prevent testimony is impractical, creates evidentiary anomalies, and undermines the protection of domestic violence victims, whose abusers often kill them with the certain knowledge, if not the specific purpose, that they will be silenced.
Concurring - Justice Souter
Yes, I agree with the majority's conclusion that the forfeiture exception requires a showing of intent to prevent testimony. This intent requirement is necessary to prevent the circular reasoning where the admissibility of a victim's statement to prove guilt would turn on a preliminary finding by the judge that the defendant is guilty of the very act causing the absence. However, in cases involving a classic abusive relationship, the intent to isolate the victim from outside help, including law enforcement and the judicial process, is often inherent. Therefore, a history of domestic abuse would normally satisfy the requirement of showing intent to thwart the judicial process, making it likely the victim's statements could be admitted on remand.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
While I join the Court's opinion, I adhere to my view that informal statements to police, like those made by Avie, are not 'testimonial' and therefore do not implicate the Confrontation Clause in the first place. Because the testimonial nature of the statement was not challenged here, I concur in the Court's analysis of the forfeiture doctrine.
Concurring - Justice Alito
I join the Court's opinion on the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine, but I share Justice Thomas's doubts about whether the victim's out-of-court statement in this case was 'testimonial' and thus subject to the Confrontation Clause at all.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception to the Confrontation Clause. By requiring the prosecution to prove that the defendant acted with the specific intent to prevent a witness from testifying, the Court raised the evidentiary bar for admitting a victim's prior testimonial statements. This holding has a major impact on domestic violence prosecutions, where a victim's statements to police are often critical evidence after the victim has been killed by the defendant. While the ruling makes admission of such statements more difficult, Justice Scalia's majority opinion and Justice Souter's concurrence provide a potential pathway for prosecutors by suggesting that intent can be inferred from a pattern of abusive and controlling behavior designed to silence the victim.
Unlock the full brief for Giles v. California