So what does this have to do with Louis Butler? It may be recalled that in State v. Jensen, the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision that allowed the admission into evidence at Mark Jensen's trial certain statements of the victim, Butler dissented.
And Butler dissented on precisely the grounds that now present themselves to the U.S. Supreme Court in a case called Giles v. California. (More on Giles here.)
I discussed State v. Jensen back in December in this post. The following is from Justice Butler's dissent:
Because I conclude, contrary to the majority, that the forfeiture doctrine should be applied (1) where the defendant caused the absence of the witness and (2) did so for the purpose of preventing the witness from testifying, I respectfully dissent in part.And here is the question presented to the U.S. Supreme Court:
Does a criminal defendant "forfeit" his or her Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause claims upon a mere showing that the defendant has caused the unavailability of a witness, as some courts have held, or must there also be an additional showing that the defendant’s actions were undertaken for the purpose of preventing the witness from testifying, as other courts have held?More later ...