Layman’s view from the newspaper articles?
Guiles is on trial
Ex-girlfriend testifies. Testimony includes stories of the defendent trying to kill her.
Ex-girlfriend can’t continue testimony because THE DEFENDENT KILLS HER!!!
Defendent gets a new trial because he can’t confront the witness against him - THE WOMAN HE KILLED! (On a 6-3 ruling no less)
W!! T!! F!!
Please try to explain how this could happen.
Well, ok. This site might help…it discusses the case and it’s background, including the arguments used by both sides:
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Giles_v._California
How do we know this? Was this determined in a court of law, or is it just common knowledge?
Well, the guy was on trial for the murder of his ex-girlfriend.
Basically, what happens is (and look at the link I posted for more information), a guy (Giles) is in his grandmother’s garage. His ex-girlfriend comes over. They have an altercation, and he shoots her.
At the trial, he claims it’s self defense…she was running at him, and he was afraid for his life, because she was violent and unstable. The prosecution introduces statements by the ex-girlfriend to a police officer in the past, where she told the officer that Giles had assaulted her. The jury finds Giles guilty.
He appeals, saying, “The court shouldn’t have been allowed to hear my ex-girlfriend’s claims that I assaulted her. There’s something in the bill of rights called the Confrontation clause, which says that I have the right to confront people who make accusations against me. Since she was dead, I couldn’t do that, so the court shouldn’t have let those statements in and I should get a new trial.”
The appellate court says, “A person gives up his right in the Confrontation clause if he kills a witness. A dead witness’s statements can be allowed in in that case. If you wanted to be able to confront her, you shouldn’t have killed her. No new trial for you.”
Giles then appeals to the Supreme Court, saying, “The appellate court got this all wrong! A person only gives up his right to confront a witness if he kills the witness to stop them from testifying. It’s meant to stop people like mob bosses from killing off witnesses. But this doesn’t apply in my case. Nobody says I killed her to keep her from testifying. That would be silly, and the only way the prosecution should have been able to get those statements of hers in was if they could prove I killed her in order to keep her from testifying against me”
Captain Amazing, that was an… er… amazing summary. Very well done.
I agree. That was a great summary.
It sucks, but you have to draw the line against heresay somewhere. Given the circumstances of the case- he admits killing her, claims in self-defense; statements she allegedly made would cast doubt on that; she can’t be cross-examined because she’s dead, which is the subject of the whole trial; and therefore her death in itself is held against him- would make it too close to a Catch-22.
Much as I dislike the idea of letting killers benefit from the absence of their victims at trial, there is something seemingly illogical about saying that a person who kills someone “benefits” from the victim’s absence at trial. It would have benefited him a lot more if he hadn’t killed her, wouldn’t it? Anyway, I suspect that the Giles side is right in its contention that the state’s interpretation is unprecedented, because otherwise how could this dispute not have come up before now?
One way to look at this is as a disagreement over the purpose of the principle that “an individual cannot benefit, in a criminal trial, from his own misconduct.” If this principle is regarded as an end unto itself, the state’s side makes more sense. On the other hand, if the principle is seen as intended to discourage misconduct by defendants, the state’s position is absurd: no one is going to be encouraged to murder someone in order to prevent that person from testifying at the murder trial!
A question: if the victim had survived the attack, and Giles had gone on trial for attempted murder, would the police officer’s testimony about Avie’s statements have been admissible?
Not unless the victim was unavailable within the meaning of the hearsay rules. If the victim could testify, then the cop can’t.
That’s what I guessed. That opens up another weird angle on the case. It would have been her word against his that he had assaulted her earlier. The jury would have had to decide for themselves whether she had just made up the story of the earlier assault to improve her case against him. So because he killed her, the prosecution was able to use better evidence against him than they would have otherwise.
So what happens if the is a 911 call with the victim being heard identifying his/her killer as it happens? Does it get thrown out as hearsay?
Suppose a person files numerous complaints about a person and then is killed by that person? Are those complaints now inadmissable?
No, that could probably come in as a “present sense impression” or an “excited utterance,” exceptions to the hearsay rule.
They’re inadmissible for the truth of the matter – that is, you can’t admit the complaints to show that the substance of the complaints is true. The fact that complaints were made might be admissible to show a motive for the subsequent murder.
Just wanted to add that the opinion in Giles v. California is written by Justice Scalia. He was a busy boy at the end there, and the approach used is one of original meaning. He had JJ. Souter and Ginsburg with him on this one, too. 
It is not unknown for women to make up such complaints of assault against men (a friend of mine was so accused but vindicated). To me, evidence of the woman’s instability is her approaching him while a witness for the impending prosecution.
So while I don’t know if he’ innocent or not, I do think a retrial is entirely correct.