Another Constitutional right is being taken away

[devil21]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/07/poisoned.wife.ap/index.html

During the murder trial of the victim's husband, letters from the slain woman pointing to her husband as her killer are being introduced as evidence at the go-ahead of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. This violates the 6th Amendment right to cross examine (confront) the accuser. It also blatently violates the hearsay rule (you can't testify about what someone else told you through the grapevine). This is a VERY bad precedent that *will* end up before the US Supreme Court in the near future. If the USSC rules this acceptable then there goes another Constitutional right and a bedrock of the justice system.

[devil21]

bump

Any legal minds have any thoughts?

[diggronpaul]

Another Constitutional right is being taken away.
The Constitution does not establish rights, it sets limits. ....Limits on the power of government. Please get this very important distinction correct.


It is not a "6th Amendment right to cross examine (confront) the accuser"....it is that the 6th Amendment does not give the Gov't the power to stop, block, or interfere with an individuals inalienable right to confront their accuser. The gov't just don't got the power folks, cause the Constitution doesn't give it to them. This judge did not have the power to allow this. This was an abuse by the judge OUTSIDE the limit set forth in the Constitution.

[freelance]

The Constitution does not establish rights, it sets limits. ....Limits on the power of government. Please get this very important distinction correct.


It is not a "6th Amendment right to cross examine (confront) the accuser"....it is that the 6th Amendment does not give the Gov't the power to stop, block, or interfere with an individuals inalienable right to confront their accuser. The gov't just don't got the power folks, cause the Constitution doesn't give it to them. This judge did not have the power to allow this. This was an abuse by the judge OUTSIDE the limit set forth in the Constitution.

That is such an important distinction, and I forget that from time to time. Thanks for bringing that up, because I do not want to end up looking ignorant the next time I say something like that. Damn, even WE are brainwashed.

[Matt Collins]

The Constitution does not establish rights, it sets limits. ....Limits on the power of government. Please get this very important distinction correct.


It is not a "6th Amendment right to cross examine (confront) the accuser"....it is that the 6th Amendment does not give the Gov't the power to stop, block, or interfere with an individuals inalienable right to confront their accuser. The gov't just don't got the power folks, cause the Constitution doesn't give it to them. This judge did not have the power to allow this. This was an abuse by the judge OUTSIDE the limit set forth in the Constitution.

Thank you for writing this. I was about to come in and correct the original poster but I am glad someone else had already done so.

[constituent]

The Constitution does not establish rights, it sets limits. ....Limits on the power of government. Please get this very important distinction correct.


It is not a "6th Amendment right to cross examine (confront) the accuser"....it is that the 6th Amendment does not give the Gov't the power to stop, block, or interfere with an individuals inalienable right to confront their accuser. The gov't just don't got the power folks, cause the Constitution doesn't give it to them. This judge did not have the power to allow this. This was an abuse by the judge OUTSIDE the limit set forth in the Constitution.

+1000

[WilliamC]

I'm no lawyer (thank goodness) but I don't think letters or other written documents from a victim would be heresay.

[devil21]

The Constitution does not establish rights, it sets limits. ....Limits on the power of government. Please get this very important distinction correct.


It is not a "6th Amendment right to cross examine (confront) the accuser"....it is that the 6th Amendment does not give the Gov't the power to stop, block, or interfere with an individuals inalienable right to confront their accuser. The gov't just don't got the power folks, cause the Constitution doesn't give it to them. This judge did not have the power to allow this. This was an abuse by the judge OUTSIDE the limit set forth in the Constitution.

I fail to see the difference. If they can't prevent you from confronting your accuser then doesnt it mean that you have a right to confront your accuser if you wish? Maybe Im thinking about it in too simple of terms. Regardless, if the Supreme Court upholds this then the 6th amendment "limit" :rolleyes: would be removed.

EDIT: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

[Naraku]

It is not a "6th Amendment right to cross examine (confront) the accuser"....it is that the 6th Amendment does not give the Gov't the power to stop, block, or interfere with an individuals inalienable right to confront their accuser. The gov't just don't got the power folks, cause the Constitution doesn't give it to them.

Like it or not the Constitution is really just a sheet of paper. The power of government rests solely in its power over the people. If the government can control the people, then no amount of codified law can stop them getting their way.

Also, the Supreme Court, in the grand scheme of things, has a power which can't be checked and is effectively above the Constitution. The only redress against the Supreme Court is an impeachment, a highly unlikely occurrence. Other than the only hope is to wait for one of them to resign or die.

[devil21]

I'm no lawyer (thank goodness) but I don't think letters or other written documents from a victim would be heresay.

First, it depends on who is introducing the letters as evidence. A prosecutor can't just say "hey I have letters here that I want the jury to read" and read them. That is hearsay because the prosecutor did not personally receive the letters. They would come from someone else. That would be hearsay because the prosecutor can't personally vouch for the origin of the letters as fact. If the prosecutor did vouch for the letters then the prosecutor would be a witness and would be subject to examination.

If a witness testified that they received the letters then the hearsay rule would not apply because it is first hand knowledge of the origin. The defense could cross examine the recipient of the letters...but that still violates the intent of the 6th amendment right to confront the accuser (letter writer).

[InterestedParticipant]

Like it or not the Constitution is really just a sheet of paper. The power of government rests solely in its power over the people. If the government can control the people, then no amount of codified law can stop them getting their way.

Also, the Supreme Court, in the grand scheme of things, has a power which can't be checked and is effectively above the Constitution. The only redress against the Supreme Court is an impeachment, a highly unlikely occurrence. Other than the only hope is to wait for one of them to resign or die.
I'm astounded by people's warped sense of reality. Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? Let me direct you to the following passage:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

[steve005]

bump

[Naraku]

I'm astounded by people's warped sense of reality.

There's nothing warped about it, that's just simply how things are. When people submit to government they don't have to be convinced to surrender their freedom, because they already have.

The Constitution only holds meaning if the people give it meaning.

[Kade]

Any legal minds have any thoughts?

This is a matter of a the Constitutional Right called the "Confrontation Clause" in law.

In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004) the Supreme Court reviewed and overturned former precedent on the matter regarding a person's right to face their accuser. (see Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66, 100 S. Ct. 2531, 2538, 65 L. Ed. 2d 597, 608 (1980))

The precedent stated that it was a Judge's discretion if hearsay evidence was reliable, which effectively trumped the concept of facing their accuser...

However, the prior rule, in basis of testify follows what is called "indicia of reliability", which allows for legitimate sources of testimony in cases. The idea was that if particularized guarantees of trustworthiness were introduced, the evidence should be allowed.

In this case, consider that the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling on the "Confrontation Clause" and also consider that the intent of the Amendment did not mean to exclude murder victim's testimony from the case. If the logic of the new finding of this (absurdly inept) Supreme Court were to stand, a criminal in a murder trial could claim that the person he/she murdered was not here to testify against them, and therefore he should be acquitted. The state is trying the man for murder, the letter is evidence. If the ruling applies to this case, all evidence is up for grabs, since all evidence could be considered testimony of individuals who might or might not be present.

The letter quickly becomes evidence if it endures objective forensic investigation. It is no longer "hearsay" if the letter is proven to be written by the woman who was murdered. however, the defense appears ready to use the letter as legal DEFENSE, in stating that this woman actually committed suicide, and that the letter proves that she meant to frame him for it...

Consider that...

The truth is, you have a right to confront your accuser. This means that you cannot be brought trial on hearsay without meeting the person accusing you.

In a case where you are already brought to trial, the confrontation clause applies only to evidence of people's testimony who refuse to show up at the trial.

The application of the "confrontation clause" in this case is absurd. You are not losing a right.

Instead, all those that favor of the consideration without educating themselves in this case, fail to realize that the recent ruling has been abused by municipalities in complaints against the Justice Department and police Breathalyzer tests. Some states now force the accusers of the Police to present their identities while still in custody... something that, if anyone has ever been incarcerated, you don't want to be a part of... In other words, this rule has now been applied to safeguard local police forces from accusations of brutality and wrongful imprisonment.


Think deeply about it, and research. You do have a right to face your accuser... in this case, the accuser is the STATE, for the crime of murder, for which the letter is simply evidence.

[Kade]

The Constitution does not establish rights, it sets limits. ....Limits on the power of government. Please get this very important distinction correct.


It is not a "6th Amendment right to cross examine (confront) the accuser"....it is that the 6th Amendment does not give the Gov't the power to stop, block, or interfere with an individuals inalienable right to confront their accuser. The gov't just don't got the power folks, cause the Constitution doesn't give it to them. This judge did not have the power to allow this. This was an abuse by the judge OUTSIDE the limit set forth in the Constitution.

Although I agree with your assessment of the limits of government. The conclusion was fail.