About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


63 Drake L. Rev. 527 (2015)
The Law of Unintended Consequences Strikes Again: Does Murder Have a Statute of Limitations Now: The Sky Will Fall Unless the Supreme Court Changes Its Interpretation of the Right of Confrontation

handle is hein.journals/drklr63 and id is 549 raw text is: THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES STRIKES AGAIN: DOES MURDER HAVE A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS NOW? THE SKY WILL FALL UNLESS THE SUPREME COURT CHANGES ITS INTERPRETATION OF THE RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION* Robert Molko** ABSTRACT In its 2004 decision in Crawford v. Washington, the U.S. Supreme Court created the legal equivalent of a major earthquake by changing the interpretation of the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation from what it had applied for the previous 24 years under Ohio v. Roberts. Out-of-court statements were now excluded unless the declarant was unavailable and the defense had an opportunity to cross-examine. This Crawford interpretation was extended to forensic laboratory reports in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts and Bullcoming v. New Mexico. In the most recent case of Williams v. Illinois, the Court was unable to reach a majority opinion on the admissibility of an expert's opinion that was based on another expert's DNA forensic laboratory report. As a result, it appears that if the same Melendez-Diaz-Bullcoming rules are applied to forensic autopsy reports, the cause and manner of death of the victim cannot be proved once the autopsy pathologist dies. This would lead to the unintended creation of a de facto statute of limitations for murder tied to the lifetime of the autopsy pathologist. * Copyright© 2015 by Robert Molko. All rights reserved. ** Associate Professor of Law, Western State College of Law; B.S.E.E., City College of New York, 1967; M.S.E.E., New York University, 1970; J.D., Southwestern Law School, 1974. From 1975 to 2007, the Author served as a prosecutor in the Orange County District Attorney's Office in California, where he tried more than 150 jury trials, including 35 homicides and a death penalty case. Over those 32 years, he was involved in numerous hearsay and confrontation issues that controlled the outcome of cases. The Author thanks Professor Glenn Koppel, Professor Stacey Sobel, and Professor Tracie Porter for their suggestions and encouragement. Special thanks go to Reference Librarian Scott Frey, Kylie Starr, and Barb Breeden for their research assistance.