The doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing was carved out as an exception to the standard for the admissibility of testimonial hearsay evidence laid down in Crawford v. Washingtom . Since Crawford , the California Supreme Court granted review in two cases, People v. Giles and People v. Jiles , which applied the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing. The forfeiture doctrine was originally formulated to require the accused commit an intentional act to prevent a witness from testifying, thus proving that the doctrine's nature is based on the equitable principle that no person shall profit from wrongful conduct. By examining the equitable basis of the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, this article contends that Giles ignores the equitable basis of the forfeiture doctrine and results in a violation of the confrontation clause. The author concludes that Giles ' holding would result in situations the U.S. Supreme Court hoped to prevent.
Crawford and the Forfeiture by Wrongdoing Exception,
San Diego L. Rev.
Available at: https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol42/iss4/3