Should murder victims’ words be heard in court?

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear a Los Angeles murderer’s appeal to decide a legal question that sounds like a macabre joke: The man argues that his victim’s statements to police shouldn’t be admissible, because the dead witness isn’t available for cross-examination.

The case, to be decided in the spring, could have a serious impact in many trials where a key witness isn’t there to testify.

Three years ago, in something of a surprise, the high court said “hearsay” or other out-of-court statements generally cannot be used in a trial. That repealed the more relaxed rule that had been in effect for more than two decades.

Prior to 2004, reliable out-of-court statements, such a police officer’s report of an interview with a witness, could be used at a trial if the witness was not available.

This issue arises often in cases of child abuse or spousal abuse, when the victim is often too afraid to testify.

But Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking for the court, said this relaxed approach to hearsay conflicts with the 6th Amendment, which says the accused “shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”

Scalia said those words should be read literally, and they give defendants the right to confront and cross-examine their accusers in court. This is essential, he said, so the jury can decide who is telling the truth.

Since then, judges have struggled to decide how far to take that right.

Two years ago, the high court reinforced its new stand when it threw out a spousal assault conviction against an Indiana man whose wife had refused to testify. However, the jury heard from a police officer who had been called to their house. The woman said she been hit and thrown to the floor, the office reported, and he described her bruises. But Scalia said the officer’s report should have been excluded from the trial.

The new case, Dwayne Giles vs. California, tests the outer limit of the right to confront a witness.

It began in September 2002, when Brenda Avie went to Giles’ house in South Central Los Angeles. The two had dated, but quarreled often. Standing in a dark garage, Giles shot Avie six times, killing her.

At his trial, Giles claimed self-defense. He said Avie was violent and had shot a man before.

But a police officer testified that two weeks earlier, he had been called to Avie’s house to break up a fight between the two. At that time, Avie said that Giles had threatened to kill her.

The jury convicted Giles of first-degree murder, and he was sentenced to 50 years in prison.

In his appeals, he argued that the police officer’s testimony should have been excluded from the trial because it was hearsay. He lost in the California courts, which applied the principle that “no person should benefit from his own wrongful acts.”

On Friday the Supreme Court voted to hear the Giles case in April.

“This case is of national importance because it will decide whether a defendant loses his right by virtue of committing a crime,” said Marilyn G. Burkhardt, a Los Angeles lawyer who filed the appeal. She agreed that Giles would forfeit his rights if he had intended to prevent a witness from testifying. But Giles did not intend to silence a witness, she said: that was “an unintended result of the defendant’s wrongful act.”

California prosecutors said this distinction made no sense. “The victim was unavailable to testify [because] of the defendant’s criminal act,” said Deputy Atty. Gen. Russell A. Lehman, so Giles forfeited his right to confront his accuser.

Also on Friday, the court said it would hear a challenge to the so-called “Millionaire’s Amendment,” the federal rule that allows the opponents of rich candidates funding their own campaigns to raise more money than federal law usually allows.

The amendment applies when a candidate for the House of Representatives spends more than $350,000 in personal funds. The opponent then can collect donations that are three times the normal limit from individuals and may also gather additional contributions above the limit from their party.

Jack Davis, a wealthy Democrat, spent $2.2 million of his own money in a 2006 bid for a Buffalo, N.Y., area congressional seat, narrowly losing to Republican incumbent Thomas M. Reynolds.

Davis sued the Federal Election Commission, contending it was unfair to lift donation limits for his opponent. He said Congress sought to “protect well-financed incumbents” from self-financed challengers, like him.

But a three-judge panel upheld the rule, saying it “does not limit in any way the use of a candidate’s personal wealth in his run for office.”

--

david.savage@latimes.com