Friday, July 18, 2014

Tacoma Criminal Lawyer’s Domestic Violence Defense Case Gets Dismissed

"The plaintiff argued about the validity of the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, where the accused automatically forfeits the right to the Confrontation Clause. Moreover, the plaintiff also claimed that Mr. X’s alleged action instigated witness Y’s refusal to involve herself in the case. However, Atty. Hunter challenged that it is not appropriate to apply the doctrine when the defendant does not prevent testimony from being given, and when it revokes an essential constitutional right. The circumstances also seem to show that the absence of the witness is likely motivated by her own feelings about the defendant, especially because she is carrying his child. Ultimately, the Court ruled that it is improper to consent to the introduction of testimonial evidence when there is proof that the constitutional right of the defendant was violated. The prosecution permitted the submission of the witness’ testimonial statement despite the fact that defense had no opportunity to cross-examin

No comments:

Post a Comment