Post by kimbylee on Jun 23, 2006 6:39:07 GMT -5
Court: 911 Calls Can Be Used as Evidence
In a victory for the victims of domestic violence, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that statements made by victims during 911 calls can be used as evidence against the accused, even if those victims never testify in court.
Justice Antonin Scalia said 911 statements can be used if police are trying to deal with an emergency, but cannot be used if the emergency has ended and police are gathering evidence to file charges.
"This particular type of crime is notoriously susceptible to intimidation or coercion of the victim to ensure that she does not testify at trial. When this occurs, (it) gives the criminal a windfall," Scalia wrote.
The ruling came in a Washington case, Davis v. Washington, in which a tape of a 911 call was used against Adrian Davis at his trial. The victim in the case disappeared and did not testify. He argued that the tape violated his right to confront his accuser. The court voted 9-0 to uphold his conviction.
In an Indiana case, the court ruled that testimony from a policeman about what a domestic violence victim, who did not testify, told him after the attack was not admissible against her husband, because the information was gathered after the emergency had ended.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in the Indiana case, writing that the officer's questions could have been posed to determine whether the victim remained in danger, not solely to gather evidence.
In a victory for the victims of domestic violence, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that statements made by victims during 911 calls can be used as evidence against the accused, even if those victims never testify in court.
Justice Antonin Scalia said 911 statements can be used if police are trying to deal with an emergency, but cannot be used if the emergency has ended and police are gathering evidence to file charges.
"This particular type of crime is notoriously susceptible to intimidation or coercion of the victim to ensure that she does not testify at trial. When this occurs, (it) gives the criminal a windfall," Scalia wrote.
The ruling came in a Washington case, Davis v. Washington, in which a tape of a 911 call was used against Adrian Davis at his trial. The victim in the case disappeared and did not testify. He argued that the tape violated his right to confront his accuser. The court voted 9-0 to uphold his conviction.
In an Indiana case, the court ruled that testimony from a policeman about what a domestic violence victim, who did not testify, told him after the attack was not admissible against her husband, because the information was gathered after the emergency had ended.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in the Indiana case, writing that the officer's questions could have been posed to determine whether the victim remained in danger, not solely to gather evidence.