{"id":3115,"date":"2021-11-13T03:43:34","date_gmt":"2021-11-13T03:43:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/live-cornell-law-review.pantheonsite.io\/?p=3115"},"modified":"2026-05-27T17:34:13","modified_gmt":"2026-05-27T17:34:13","slug":"the-state-courts-dont-have-time-for-your-crackpot-antiquarianism-a-decade-of-domestic-homicides-since-giles-v-california","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/2021\/11\/13\/the-state-courts-dont-have-time-for-your-crackpot-antiquarianism-a-decade-of-domestic-homicides-since-giles-v-california\/","title":{"rendered":"The State Courts Don&#8217;t Have Time for Your Crackpot Antiquarianism: A Decade of Domestic Homicides Since Giles V. California"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>How Giles v. California would affect domestic violence cases was hotly debated within the case itself and in the literature that followed. This article presents the first comprehensive review of the 114 domestic homicide cases since Giles in which there was an intimate relationship between the victim and the accused,<sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_3115_1('footnote_plugin_reference_3115_1_1');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_3115_1('footnote_plugin_reference_3115_1_1');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_3115_1_1\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">1<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">1. The vast majority of the cases concerned couples, whether married or not, but a small minority involved matricide or other intra-family murders.<\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_3115_1_1').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_3115_1_1', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> and the victim had made statements that were sought to be introduced against the defendant.<sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_3115_1('footnote_plugin_reference_3115_1_2');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_3115_1('footnote_plugin_reference_3115_1_2');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_3115_1_2\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">2<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">2. For a thoughtful review of non-fatal domestic violence cases that struggled with the forfeiture issue post-Giles, see Aviva Orenstein, Forfeiture of Confrontation Rights and the Complicated Dynamics&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_3115_1('footnote_plugin_reference_3115_1_2');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_3115_1_2').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_3115_1_2', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> In general, the courts were not overtly critical of Giles, although they also seemed entirely uninterested in its originalist underpinnings. Yet they managed to overturn very few convictions. Whether they were simply tuning out what they perceived to be Supreme Court posturing and getting on with business as usual, or merely following the facts and the law where these took them, the lower courts\u2019 response to Giles makes for an interesting case study in what happens when the Supreme Court issues rules that the lower courts disagree with.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This Article proceeds in three parts. Part I reviews the reinvigorated Confrontation Clause jurisprudence launched by Crawford v. Washington and the new hurdles to proving forfeiture by wrongdoing.<sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_3115_1('footnote_plugin_reference_3115_1_3');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_3115_1('footnote_plugin_reference_3115_1_3');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_3115_1_3\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">3<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">3. Note that while I refer to these hurdles as \u201cnew,\u201d they are actually coterminous with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence regarding forfeiture by wrongdoing. See FED. R. EVID.&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_3115_1('footnote_plugin_reference_3115_1_3');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_3115_1_3').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_3115_1_3', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> Part II analyzes how the state courts and lower federal courts have resolved forfeiture issues in 114 domestic homicide cases since Giles v. California. Part III critiques the three foundational policies that support Giles, namely fairness to the defendant, evenhandedness among victims, and deference to history, and explores how these fared in the trial courts. It concludes that domestic homicides present a situation where the ideological commitments of the higher Court do not map comfortably onto the real-life situations faced by the trial courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>To read this Article, please click here: <a href=\"https:\/\/live-cornell-law-review.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/Morrison-final.pdf\"><em>The State Courts Don&#8217;t Have Time for Your Crackpot Antiquarianism: A Decade of Domestic Homicides Since<\/em> Giles V. California.<\/a><\/p>\n<div class=\"speaker-mute footnotes_reference_container\"> <div class=\"footnote_container_prepare\"><p><span role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_reference_container_label pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container_3115_1();\">References<\/span><span role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_reference_container_collapse_button\" style=\"display: none;\" onclick=\"footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container_3115_1();\">[<a id=\"footnote_reference_container_collapse_button_3115_1\">+<\/a>]<\/span><\/p><\/div> <div id=\"footnote_references_container_3115_1\" style=\"\"><table class=\"footnotes_table footnote-reference-container\"><caption class=\"accessibility\">References<\/caption> <tbody> \r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_3115_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_3115_1_1');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_3115_1_1\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>1<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">The vast majority of the cases concerned couples, whether married or not, but a small minority involved matricide or other intra-family murders.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_3115_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_3115_1_2');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_3115_1_2\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>2<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">For a thoughtful review of non-fatal domestic violence cases that struggled with the forfeiture issue post-Giles, see Aviva Orenstein, Forfeiture of Confrontation Rights and the Complicated Dynamics of Domestic Violence: Some Thoughts Inspired by Myrna Raeder, 44 SW. L. REV. 466, 473\u201374 (2015) (reviewing \u201cpost-Giles domestic violence prosecutions that raised the issue of forfeiture, but did not involve the death of the witness\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_3115_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_3115_1_3');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_3115_1_3\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>3<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Note that while I refer to these hurdles as \u201cnew,\u201d they are actually coterminous with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence regarding forfeiture by wrongdoing. See FED. R. EVID. 804(b)(6) (defining a \u201cStatement Offered Against a Party That Wrongfully Caused the Declarant\u2019s Unavailability\u201d as a \u201cstatement offered against a party that wrongfully caused\u2014or acquiesced in wrongfully causing\u2014the declarant\u2019s unavailability as a witness, and did so intending that result\u201d).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n <\/tbody> <\/table> <\/div><\/div><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> function footnote_expand_reference_container_3115_1() { jQuery('#footnote_references_container_3115_1').show(); jQuery('#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button_3115_1').text('\u2212'); } function footnote_collapse_reference_container_3115_1() { jQuery('#footnote_references_container_3115_1').hide(); jQuery('#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button_3115_1').text('+'); } function footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container_3115_1() { if (jQuery('#footnote_references_container_3115_1').is(':hidden')) { footnote_expand_reference_container_3115_1(); } else { footnote_collapse_reference_container_3115_1(); } } function footnote_moveToReference_3115_1(p_str_TargetID) { footnote_expand_reference_container_3115_1(); var l_obj_Target = jQuery('#' + p_str_TargetID); if (l_obj_Target.length) { jQuery( 'html, body' ).delay( 0 ); jQuery('html, body').animate({ scrollTop: l_obj_Target.offset().top - window.innerHeight * 0.2 }, 380); } } function footnote_moveToAnchor_3115_1(p_str_TargetID) { footnote_expand_reference_container_3115_1(); var l_obj_Target = jQuery('#' + p_str_TargetID); if (l_obj_Target.length) { jQuery( 'html, body' ).delay( 0 ); jQuery('html, body').animate({ scrollTop: l_obj_Target.offset().top - window.innerHeight * 0.2 }, 380); } }<\/script>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>How Giles v. California would affect domestic violence cases was hotly debated within the case itself and in the literature that followed. This article presents the first comprehensive review of the 114 domestic homicide cases since Giles in which there was an intimate relationship between the victim and the accused,11. The vast majority of the&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,95,720],"tags":[204,230,264,359],"class_list":["post-3115","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles","category-issue-6-print-volume-106","category-print-volume-106","tag-confrontation-clause","tag-crawford-v-washington","tag-domestic-homicide","tag-giles-v-california"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3115","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3115"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3115\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5278,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3115\/revisions\/5278"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3115"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3115"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3115"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}