The Sound of Silence: Holding Batterers Accountable for Silencing Their Victims

This Article examines courts' treatment of forfeiture doctrine in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Giles v. California.  Prior to Giles, courts in most jurisdictions held hearsay statements admissible whenever a declarant's silence was procured by an accused's wrongdoing.  Giles, however, interprets the Confrontation Clause to bar admission of such evidence, unless the prosecution can show that the wrongdoing was specifically motivated by a desire to prevent the declarant's testimony.  Professor Lininger considers the likely ramifications of this decision for victims of domestic violence and domestic homicide.  He proposes a new judicial framework for approaching forfeiture doctrine as well as a modification of evidentiary rules, which together would permit courts and legislatures to comply with Giles while still protecting victims of domestic violence.