Prosecutors often use evidence such as 911 calls to help convict perpetrators of domestic violence. But if the right wing has its way, not anymore. Consider the case of Michelle McCottry and Amy Hammon, victims of domestic violence, from the
Washington Post:
McCottry called 911 to report a beating that her boyfriend had just administered; Hammon gave an account of a fresh attack by her husband to police who came to her home.
McCottry and Hammon did not testify at the men's trials; the state won convictions anyway, based in part on the women's previous statements.
But did those convictions violate the Constitution, which guarantees a defendant the right to confront his accuser in court?
The Supreme Court is about to decide. (more on the flip)
In July, the Court is expected to weigh in on whether evidence from victims in emergency situations (such as McCottry and Hammon's) can be given to the jury without forcing the victims to testify. Why has this longstanding ability of prosecutors been thrown into doubt?
The cases arise largely because the Supreme Court changed its rules in a 2004 decision. In an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, it barred a statement to police by a wife who would not testify against her husband regarding an alleged assault on a third person. The Sixth Amendment was intented to keep out any previous testimony from a witness unavailable to testify, the court ruled, unless that witness had previously been subject to cross-examination.
And naturally, the Bush administration is arguing to keep this evidence out. Hey, if she'd dare to call the police, she ought to back it up in court, no?
But meanwhile, the Sixth Amendment right to confront an accuser is dying on the vine elsewhere...and the use of so-called "secret evidence" is growing (USA Today):
Mohammed Sharif, an Afghan, was accused of guarding a Taliban camp. He denied it--and urged the military tribunal to produce the classified evidence against him. An unidentified tribunal member seemed as mystified as Sharif.
Q: You mentioned that if we had facts or proof against you, you would understand why you were a prisoner, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: What could you have possibly done, that we might discover some of those facts?
A: That's my point. There are no facts...This is ridiculous. I know for a fact there is no proof.
That's what your tax dollars are paying for, right now, in Guantanamo. But surely, the classified evidence must be to protect the nation?
But attorney Gaillard Hunt, who represents a Guantanamo Bay detainee, said he has seen heavily censored classified evidence against his client, and described it as thin.
"It was underwhelming," Hunt said, adding that he is barred from discussing the evidence, even with his client....
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. While they fight tooth and nail against prisioners in a torture camp even seeing evidence against them, victims of domestic violence will be forced to watch perpetrators go free due to lack of evidence. Just the latest in a long line of outrages by this Administration, whose welcome in the reality-based community has long since expired.