Praise Where Due

There are plenty of times when I think Justice Scalia has gone off track.  But he is also, in some areas, consistent and stays with his announced methodology and principles.  The Sixth Amendment, for example.  Scalia dissenting alone in Michigan v. Bryant gets it right.  Exactly right.  A dying utterance is admissible, but the prosecution offered up a hodge-podge of other grounds for admission of the statement.  I don't see how any of those theories could possibly meet the requirements of confrontation, and it seems to me just bad faith to suppose that the utterance was used for any reason other than to prove guilt.  The explanation that it was solicited and offered because of a need to hunt for weapons or dal with an emergency is ridiculous.   It was solicited as and intended all around as testimonial.  This decision, and its ilk, encourage dishonesty in investigation and prosecution, and make more fragile and enfeeble the protections against prosecutorial and police abuse.  The objective import of the context of interrogation yields an account of the primary purpose of the interrogation.  Emergencies go on longer and cover a wider space because a gun is involved.  I suppose a mile or so, for I don't know how long.  This is hard to believe, and really means no standard at all. 

Comments

[vibram five fingers]

It was solicited as and intended all around as testimonial.