Case Name: U.S. v. Valdes-Vega , 9 Cir , Case #: 10-50249
Opinion Date: 7/25/2012 , DAR #: 10223
Case Name: People v. Jones , District: 2 DCA , Division: 5 ,
Case #: B233204
Opinion Date: 7/23/2012 , DAR #: 10217
Case Holding:
The forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine is not limited to
statements by victim witnesses who were murdered to prevent their testimony.
Appellant was charged with assault, grand theft, and criminal threats against
his former girlfriend's friend. The former girlfriend was subpoenaed to testify
at a hearing on the admissibility of evidence that appellant choked her in
2009. She had previously told a detective that she ended her relationship with
appellant because of physical violence between them, that she was afraid of
him, and that he made incriminating statements to her on the date of the
charged crimes. After she failed to appear, a body attachment was ordered but
the prosecution was unable to locate her. Inmate phone records showed that
appellant had called her a dozen times, they spoke for over 10 hours, and
portions of the recorded calls demonstrated his intentional efforts to dissuade
her from testifying. The trial court admitted her statements based on the
forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine. (Evid. Code, § 1390; Giles v. California (2008)
554 U.S. 353.) Affirmed. While the former girlfriend’s statements to the
detective were testimonial, the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation did not
bar admission of the statements in this case. One who obtains the absence of a
witness by intentional wrongdoing forfeits the constitutional right to
confrontation of the witness. The "wrongdoing" is not limited to
killing victim witnesses, as appellant argued. The doctrine applies to
statements by corroborating witnesses whose testimony was prevented by means
other than murder. The trial court did not err in admitting the statements.
It is so very important to hire an attorney if your loved one is in jail. The first thing I tell a prospective client or prospective client's family member is to not discuss the case either while visiting the inmate, or over the phone. Even when I contact a client in jail, I always first say into the phone that I am an attorney and any recording of this confidential attorney client conversation is prohibited by state and federal law. Every phone call that comes out of the jail is recorded, the case above could have come out differently if the inmate had not used the telephone to convince his former girlfriend from testifying.
If your loved one is in jail, contact attorney George Derieg immediately for aggressive knowledgeable representation.
George Derieg, Attorney at Law
Affordable, Aggressive Representation
510-355-2747
No comments:
Post a Comment