Giles v. California

554 U.S. 353 (2008)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Giles (D) shot his ex-girlfriend, Brenda. No witness saw the shooting, but D's niece heard what transpired from inside the house. Brenda yelled “Granny” several times, and a series of gunshots sounded. The niece and grandmother ran outside and saw D standing near Brenda with a gun in his hand. She had been shot six times. One wound was consistent her holding her hand up at the time she was shot, another was consistent with her having turned to her side, and a third was consistent with her having been shot while lying on the ground. D fled the scene. He was arrested and charged with murder. At trial, D testified that he had acted in self-defense. He said that on the day of the shooting, he came to his grandmother’s house and threatened to kill him and his new girlfriend, who had been at the house earlier. D claimed that after she threatened him at the house, he went into the garage and retrieved a gun, took the safety off, and started walking toward the back door of the house. He said she charged at him, and that he was afraid she had something in her hand. D closed his eyes and fired several shots, but did not intend to kill her. P tried to introduce statements Brenda had made to a police officer responding to a domestic-violence report about three weeks before the shooting. Brenda told the officer that D had accused her of having an affair and that after the two began to argue, D grabbed her by the shirt, lifted her off the floor, and began to choke her. D punched her in the face and head, and after she broke free, he opened a folding knife, held it about three feet away from her, and threatened to kill her if he found her cheating on him. D objected, but the trial court admitted these statements into evidence. D was convicted of first-degree murder. He appealed. While his appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided in Crawford v. Washington that the Confrontation Clause requires that a defendant have the opportunity to confront the witnesses who give testimony against him, except in cases where an exception to the confrontation right was recognized at the time of the founding. The California Court of Appeal affirmed because Crawford recognized a doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing. D had forfeited his right to confront Brenda because he had committed the murder for which he was on trial and because his intentional criminal act made her unavailable to testify. The California Supreme Court affirmed on the same ground. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.