So, yesterday I read the story linked above, and was very puzzled. I, being the law-junkie and soon-to-be-paralegal that I am, strive to ensure that the citizens of this country are afforded all the rights given to them by the Bill or Rights and Constitutions of this Country. However, what do you do when the victim's rights and the criminal's rights get crossed? Whose rights supersede the others?
Let me explain a little about this case - currently going before the Supreme Court of California. The defendant (Giles) in the case is on trial for murdering his girlfriend, and she had given statements to the Los Angles Police that Giles had threatened to kill her. However, Giles is claiming that those statements can't be used against him in court because she is not there to be cross-examined. Its all very twisted. So right now, the Supreme Court is not determining whether this man is guilty or innocent, they are trying to determine if the testimony of the victim can be used against the defendant after the defendant murdered her!!!!!
Yes, the Constitution states that every accused person has the right to question the accuser, but happens if the accuser is dead because of the accused? The statements of the victim would put this man in prison for a very long time, but can she be heard? But what about the victim's rights? Doesn't the victim have the right to be heard? Doesn't she have the right to be protected and see her murderer receive justice?
I think this is definitely a case for Wendy Murphy !!!