Giles v. California | |
---|---|
Argued April 22, 2008 Decided June 25, 2008 | |
Full case name | Dwayne Giles v. California |
Docket no. | 07-6053 |
Citations | 554 U.S. 353 (more) 128 S. Ct. 2678; 171 L. Ed. 2d 488 |
Case history | |
Prior | Vacated, 40 Cal.4th 833 (2007) |
Holding | |
For statements to be admitted under the forfeiture exception to the confrontation right, the defendant must have intended to make the witness unavailable for trial. Vacated and remanded. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Scalia, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito; Souter, Ginsburg (all but Part II–D–2) |
Concurrence | Thomas |
Concurrence | Alito |
Concurrence | Souter (in part), joined by Ginsburg |
Dissent | Breyer, joined by Stevens, Kennedy |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV |
Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that for testimonial statements to be admissible under the forfeiture exception to hearsay, the defendant must have intended to make the witness unavailable for trial.[1]