Supreme Court of the United States · 2008 · Evidence
554 U.S. 353 (2008)
Updated
Evidenceforfeiture by wrongdoingConfrontation ClauseSixth Amendmenttestimonial statementsforfeiturewrongdoingintent to prevent testimony
Facts
Giles shot and killed his ex-girlfriend, Brenda Avie, and was later tried for murder. At trial, Giles claimed self-defense and portrayed Avie as violent and threatening. The prosecution introduced Avie's earlier statements to a police officer describing a prior assault by Giles, including choking, punching, and a threat to kill her. The trial court admitted those statements after Avie was unavailable to testify because she had been killed.
Issue
Does a defendant forfeit the Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness whenever the defendant's wrongful act caused the witness's unavailability, or only when the defendant acted with the purpose of preventing the witness from testifying?
Rule
The forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception to the Confrontation Clause applies only when the defendant engaged in wrongdoing designed to prevent the witness from testifying. Mere causation of the witness's absence, including killing the witness, is not enough without proof of intent to make the witness unavailable as a witness.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Phoenix, Omar Vega is tried for shooting Leo Hart during a dispute over a parking space. Months earlier, Leo had given a formal recorded statement to detectives identifying Omar in an unrelated vandalism investigation. The prosecution offers that prior statement after Leo dies in the shooting.
Should the court admit Leo's prior testimonial statement under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine?
Explanation. The majority rule is that forfeiture by wrongdoing requires conduct designed to prevent the witness from testifying. Mere causation—even killing the witness—is not enough. Here, nothing suggests Omar shot Leo to stop testimony in the vandalism matter, so forfeiture is not established on these facts.