Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
child_neglect_abuse · Parents:child neglect/ abuse or divorce
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Message search is now enhanced, find messages faster. Take it for a spin.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
March 2, 2006 - Crawford Decision Not Retroactive, Supreme Court De   Message List  
Reply | Forward Message #1667 of 1974 |

Child Abuse Law News Friday, March 2, 2007



New developments in law, medicine, and psychology affecting child abuse
cases. For additional news and information, visit www.childabuselaw.info.

DECISION



Crawford Decision Not Retroactive, Supreme Court Decides

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied the benefit of its landmark decision in
Crawford v. Washington to persons whose convictions were final before it was
decided. The unanimous decision came February 28th in Whorton v. Bockting.

Bockting was convicted in Nevada of sexually assaulting his six-year-old
step-daughter. She did not testify at his trial. Instead, her out-of-court
statements were admitted in evidence, despite his objection that this violated
his constitutional right to confront witnesses against him. His conviction was
affirmed on appeal, since confrontation jurisprudence at the time permitted the
procedure used at his trial.

The 2004 Crawford decision changed that. It overruled prior Confrontation
Clause cases and prohibited use of out-of-court statements in circumstances such
as Bockting's. It said such statements could be admitted at trial only if the
person who made them testified at trial, or if the defendant had had an adequate
prior opportunity to cross-examine her.

Bockting filed a habeas corpus petition for a new trial. Lower court
decisions on that petition were appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Court applied its standards for when a "new rule" of criminal
procedure will be applied to cases which are not still awaiting trial or on
direct appeal from a conviction. It decided that the Crawford rule was not
necessary to prevent "an impermissibly large risk" of an inaccurate conviction
and hence will not be applied to such cases. In fact, it said, since Crawford
eliminated an opportunity judges had had under prior case law to exclude
out-of-court statements they deemed unreliable, Crawford might actually increase
the number of unreliable out-of-court statements admitted in criminal trials.

CONTACT INFO


Child Abuse Law News is a publication of childabuselaw.info. For
additional information, contact David S. Marshall by phone at (206) 826-1400 or
email at dmarshall@....

Know of someone who may be interested in receiving this newsletter? If so,
feel free to pass it along!

For additional information on removing yourself from this list or updating
your email address, go here or call (206) 920-3280.

Copyright 2007 David S. Marshall


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Fri Mar 2, 2007 11:07 pm

connecticutd...
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email

Forward
Message #1667 of 1974 |
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

Child Abuse Law News Friday, March 2, 2007 New developments in law, medicine, and psychology affecting child abuse cases. For additional news and information,...
Connecticut DCF Watch
connecticutd...
Offline Send Email
Mar 11, 2007
2:27 pm
Advanced

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help