Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned whether the trial was unfair, considering the accused murderer testified and portrayed the dead woman as the perpetrator of the crime. "He got on the stand, and he said some very nasty things about her. He painted her as aggressive and vengeful," Ginsburg said.
Defending the conviction, Deputy State Solicitor Donald E. DeNicola said Giles had forfeited his right by killing the witness. He said the state relied on the "principle that no one may profit from wrongdoing."
At one point, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. appeared to agree with the state's lawyer. He said Giles' argument meant "he gets a great benefit from murdering her. . . . Her testimony is not available. We usually, under our system, don't try to give benefits for murderers."
But Scalia and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy suggested they would vote to reverse the conviction.
"I think it's an astonishingly broad exception you're asking for," Kennedy told the state's lawyer. It would allow the kind of secondhand "hearsay" testimony the court had barred in the 2004 ruling, he said.
California has the support of 37 other states as well as advocates against domestic violence and child abuse.
The court will hand down a decision by late June.
--
david.savage@latimes.com
