Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1561852
 
 

Footnotes (325)



 


 



Sex, Threats, and Absent Victims: The Lessons of Regina v. Bedingfield for Modern Confrontation and Domestic Violence Cases


Aviva Orenstein


Indiana University Maurer School of Law

2010

Fordham Law Review, Vol. 79 (2010)
Indiana Legal Studies Research Paper No. 156

Abstract:     
In 2004, Crawford v. Washington, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, revolutionized the law of confrontation by requiring that, aside from two discrete exceptions, all testimonial statements (those made with the expectation that they will serve to prosecute the accused) be subject to cross-examination. This new interpretation of the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause has profoundly affected domestic violence cases, making it much harder to prosecute them successfully.

Although Justice Scalia’s approach to confrontation is new, it is strikingly similar to the analysis in Regina v. Bedingfield, a notorious English murder case, which excluded from the evidence an alleged statement by the murder victim. The analysis of the res gestae hearsay exception, which was central to excluding the victim’s statement in Bedingfield, focused on the timing of her statement, her intent in making it, and whether an ongoing emergency existed when the declaration was made. Justice Scalia’s rigid, formalistic approach to testimonial statements in Davis v. Washington, another in the line of new confrontation cases, is analogous and ultimately as confusing and unworkable as Bedingfield’s res gestae analysis.

Although Bedingfield arose in 1879, its facts, replete with verbal abuse, intoxication, unheeded pleas for police protection, and ultimately, murder when the victim tried to break off the relationship, resonate with modern experiences of domestic violence. Both the Bedingfield case and Justice Scalia’s confrontation jurisprudence fail to account for the practical realities of domestic violence cases and ignore the voices of victims who cannot or will not testify on their own behalf. The facts of Bedingfield, which present a serious question whether the victim’s statement was ever uttered, demonstrate another flaw in Justice Scalia’s new approach. In addition to being too rigid in rejecting unconfronted testimonial statements, the new confrontation doctrine it is also too lax regarding nontestimonial statements, which now receive no constitutional protection at all.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 51

Keywords: Evidence, Domestic Violence, American Confrontation Doctrine, Confrontation Jurisprudence

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: March 1, 2010 ; Last revised: July 10, 2013

Suggested Citation

Orenstein, Aviva, Sex, Threats, and Absent Victims: The Lessons of Regina v. Bedingfield for Modern Confrontation and Domestic Violence Cases (2010). Fordham Law Review, Vol. 79 (2010); Indiana Legal Studies Research Paper No. 156. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1561852 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1561852

Contact Information

Aviva Orenstein (Contact Author)
Indiana University Maurer School of Law ( email )
211 S. Indiana Avenue
Bloomington, IN 47405
United States
812-855-8736 (Phone)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,044
Downloads: 87
Download Rank: 177,301
Footnotes:  325

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.266 seconds