Giles v. California

E821199

Confrontation Clause case United States Supreme Court case criminal procedure case

Giles v. California is a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the Confrontation Clause by holding that a defendant forfeits the right to confront a witness only if the defendant intended to prevent that witness from testifying.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Statements Referenced by

Statements (47)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	Confrontation Clause case ⓘ United States Supreme Court case ⓘ criminal procedure case ⓘ
areaOfLaw	constitutional criminal procedure ⓘ criminal law ⓘ evidence law ⓘ
citation	128 S. Ct. 2678 ⓘ 171 L. Ed. 2d 488 ⓘ 554 U.S. 353 ⓘ
concurrenceBy	David H. Souter NERFINISHED ⓘ
concurrenceJoinedBy	Ruth Bader Ginsburg NERFINISHED ⓘ
constitutionalProvision	Confrontation Clause NERFINISHED ⓘ Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution NERFINISHED ⓘ
country	United States of America ⓘ surface form: United States
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate	2008-06-25 ⓘ
dissentBy	Stephen G. Breyer NERFINISHED ⓘ
dissentJoinedBy	Anthony M. Kennedy NERFINISHED ⓘ David H. Souter NERFINISHED ⓘ John Paul Stevens NERFINISHED ⓘ
docketNumber	07-6053 ⓘ
effectOnLaw	limited the use of forfeiture by wrongdoing to situations involving intent to silence the witness ⓘ
holding	A defendant forfeits the right to confront a witness only if the defendant intended to prevent the witness from testifying ⓘ Forfeiture by wrongdoing under the Confrontation Clause requires proof of intent to make the witness unavailable ⓘ
jurisdiction	California, United States ⓘ surface form: State of California United States of America ⓘ surface form: United States
keyPrinciple	equitable forfeiture applies only when the defendant engaged in wrongdoing designed to prevent testimony ⓘ historical practice at the time of the Sixth Amendment informs the scope of the Confrontation Clause ⓘ
languageOfDecision	English ⓘ
legalIssue	forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine ⓘ scope of the Confrontation Clause ⓘ
lowerCourtHolding	admitted prior testimonial statements of the deceased victim under a forfeiture-by-wrongdoing theory ⓘ
majorityJoinedBy	Anthony M. Kennedy NERFINISHED ⓘ Clarence Thomas NERFINISHED ⓘ John G. Roberts Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ Samuel A. Alito Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	Antonin Scalia NERFINISHED ⓘ
petitioner	Dwayne Giles NERFINISHED ⓘ
pluralityJoinedInPartBy	David H. Souter NERFINISHED ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg NERFINISHED ⓘ
relatedDoctrine	Crawford v. Washington NERFINISHED ⓘ testimonial hearsay ⓘ
respondent	California NERFINISHED ⓘ
stateCourt	California Court of Appeal NERFINISHED ⓘ California Supreme Court NERFINISHED ⓘ
SupremeCourtDisposition	reversed and remanded ⓘ
term	October Term 2007 ⓘ

Referenced by (1)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Crawford v. Washington → subsequentCaseInterpreting → Giles v. California ⓘ