Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Pellentesque sollicitudin, odio id tristique convallis, ligula leo rutrum purus, eu hendrerit augue ipsum sit amet sapien. Integer et lectus id arcu imperdiet suscipit nec eu neque. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nunc ac tellus venenatis, placerat nisi vitae, convallis magna. Pellentesque leo risus, dictum ac nulla et, malesuada elementum sem. In rutrum hendrerit sem at blandit. Curabitur semper ultrices tristique. Duis a faucibus justo, eu blandit nibh. Sed sodales nisl purus, nec ultrices sem sodales eget. In ac velit eu orci iaculis vestibulum.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Pellentesque sollicitudin, odio id tristique convallis, ligula leo rutrum purus, eu hendrerit augue ipsum sit amet sapien. Integer et lectus id arcu imperdiet suscipit nec eu neque. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nunc ac tellus venenatis, placerat nisi vitae, convallis magna. Pellentesque leo risus, dictum ac nulla et, malesuada elementum sem. In rutrum hendrerit sem at blandit. Curabitur semper ultrices tristique. Duis a faucibus justo, eu blandit nibh. Sed sodales nisl purus, nec ultrices sem sodales eget. In ac velit eu orci iaculis vestibulum.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Pellentesque sollicitudin, odio id tristique convallis, ligula leo rutrum purus, eu hendrerit augue ipsum sit amet sapien. Integer et lectus id arcu imperdiet suscipit nec eu neque. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nunc ac tellus venenatis, placerat nisi vitae, convallis magna. Pellentesque leo risus, dictum ac nulla et, malesuada elementum sem. In rutrum hendrerit sem at blandit. Curabitur semper ultrices tristique. Duis a faucibus justo, eu blandit nibh. Sed sodales nisl purus, nec ultrices sem sodales eget. In ac velit eu orci iaculis vestibulum.
Giles v. California
Case Details
- Case No.: 07-6053
- Jurisdiction: United States Supreme Court
Key Topics in the Case
Documents
Prior Decision
Opinion below, 152 P.3d 433 (Cal. 2007)
Question Presented
Whether a defendant forfeits his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation if the defendant kills the witness, even if the defendant did not cause the witness’s unavailability for the purpose of preventing the witness from testifying. The defendant admitted killing his girlfriend but claimed he acted in self-defense, testifying that she was a violent person who had shot another man and had threatened people with knives. To prove that the killing was premeditated, the state introduced statements the decedent has made to police officers weeks earlier accusing the defendant of threatening and assaulting her on another occasion; the court admitted the statements under a statutory hearsay exception for certain “trustworthy” statements of unavailable witnesses.
Author(s)
Jeffrey A. Lamken and Robert K. Kry, Baker Botts LLP, Washington, DC and Kennon L. Peterson, Baker Botts LLP, San Antonio, TX.