DePaul University - College of Law
August 6, 2009
Texas Law Review, Vol. 87, pp. 117-124, 2009
A defendant on trial for murdering his intimate has forfeited his constitutional right to confront her as a witness, provided that, by taking her life, he intended to 'isolate the victim and to stop her from reporting abuse to the authorities or cooperating with a criminal prosecution.' This, the rule of forfeiture recently announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in California v. Giles, requires lower courts to consider the dynamics of battering when inferring the defendant’s intent. However, current legal conceptualizations of domestic violence homicide are underdeveloped. This comment on Professor Tom Lininger’s important contribution to a rich scholarly discourse treating the Confrontation Clause advances a conversation about what I call 'control killings.' My hope is that this conversation will penetrate the law and, in particular, inform judicial inquiries into the mens rea of the batterer who kills.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 8Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: August 6, 2009
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.313 seconds