TO THE EDITOR
DISSENTING VOICE
So Dan Carol (Kumbaya Dammit, 2/26)
laments Ralph 3.0. How amusing. What
Carol fails to see (or affirm anyway) is that
Nader represents the only dissenting voice of
any real substance. Mainstream Democrats
don’t provide a compelling alternative plat-
form and haven’t in decades. Yet again
they’re proving themselves to be simply a
potpourri of reactionary voices that only
know how to dissent.
Thank God for the presence of Ralph
Nader then: At least the political left has
somebody in their mix who actually stands
for something. Will he cost them the elec-
tion? Sadly, the underlying calculus all
points to whether or not enough people are
sufficiently angry at Bush. In other words
they won’t be voting for the Democratic
leader and whatever new and innovative
ideas that person might have, but against
Bush.
Inside party faithful notwithstanding,
does anybody actually know what Kerry
stands for?
Until the Democrats actually come up
with a platform of substance, they will
always lose votes to the Naders of the world.
Frankly, after all these years of not doing so,
I’m beginning to doubt that they’re actually
up to the task.
Mark Grant
Vancouver
ED UNDER ATTACK
Teaching is an honorable and rewarding
profession. I have encouraged many talented
young people, including my daughter, to
consider it a career. But recent developments
have thrown doubt on the wisdom of such
advice.
Just last week, Rod Page, secretary of
education, the man in charge of public edu-
cation in this country, labeled the National
Education Association (NEA) a “terrorist
organization.” As a member of NEA, the
largest teacher organization (2.7 million
members) in the world, I was appalled. For
more than 30 years I have participated in
the NEA by advocating for public educa-
tion. Now we have been branded “terror-
ists” for bringing up concerns about the so-
called No Child Left Behind Education
Act. Many teachers, parents and students
believe that the ultimate aim of this act is
the destruction of the foundation of our
democracy — public education. By brand-
ing public schools inferior and its teachers
“terrorists,” it opens the door for privatiza-
tion of education through the voucher sys-
tem.
In the same week, Alan Greenspan,
Federal Reserve chairman, proposed cutting
Social Security benefits and making recent
tax cuts for the rich permanent.
This comes just as I was getting used to
the idea of my state pension decrease of 25
percent after 30 years of teaching.
In the next 10 years, close to two million
teachers will retire. These developments,
along with the trend to defund public educa-
tion (failure of Measure 30) don’t bode well
for recruiting the best and the brightest
young people to work with our children.
Pete Mandrapa
Eugene
SLUSH FUND
The Riverfront Urban Renewal Area
(news story, 3/18) is a tax giveaway!
Approximately 178 acres will have taxes
based on improvements on mostly vacant
land removed from the city budget for the
next 20 years. This is a costly decision against
the best interests of the people of Eugene. The
projected revenue is $150 million.
We should all thank the city councilors
who opposed this boondoggle. They are once
again thinking for the people of Eugene
rather than allowing this “slush fund” for
developers.
On March 8, five City Council members
allocated $750,000 out of the Urban
Renewal District for “planning” courthouse
transportation improvements and they plan
to give another $350,000 in a few months.
The council has also adopted a resolution
that if the feds fail to pay, the city will. A mil-
lion dollars of the Eugene city budget, and I
BY TOM LININGER
Getting
Confrontational
Supreme Court decision hinders
prosecutions of batterers.
I
n the last decade, the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t made a lot of waves in the area of
evidence law. Last year, I was asked to give a presentation about the Supreme
Court’s recent decisions in this area, and I didn’t have much to report. My title?
“Legally Bland.”
That all changed last week. In the case Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court
breathed new life into the Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which requires
that all defendants in criminal cases must be allowed to confront their accusers.
Evidence law is suddenly a hot topic. (Well, maybe “hot” is too strong a word; you won’t
see any evidence professors like me pushing Bennifer off your television screen.)
The Supreme Court’s opinion in Crawford prohibits the admission of certain out-of-
court statements in criminal prosecutions unless the defendant can cross-examine the
witness. That’s good news to many criminal defense attorneys. But it’s very troublesome
for advocates of domestic violence victims who want to take advantage of an innovative
statute that Oregon passed in 1999.
Here’s the problem. Victims of domestic violence are often reluctant to testify in
court against their assailants. This reluctance may be attributable to fear, economic de-
pendence, or a wide range of other psychological factors. How would you feel if you
called 911, summoning the police to arrest your abuser, only to see him back on your
doorstep four hours later because the jail is too full? Testifying in court may seem too
dangerous, so a high proportion of complainants recant or refuse to testify at trial.
Of course, the abusers still deserve to be prosecuted. The prosecutors need to be
able to rely on the initial complaints made by victims of domestic abuse who are not tes-
tifying at trial. The Oregon Legislature passed a statute in 1999 that allows the admis-
sion of statements by victims of domestic violence who speak to police within 24 hours
of being assaulted. This law — the first of its kind in the U.S. — helps to ensure that bat-
terers cannot escape punishment through intimidation of trial witnesses.
4 MARCH 25, 2004
But the Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford casts doubt on the
viability of Oregon’s 1999 law. After Crawford, a battered woman’s
statement to police may not be admissible unless she is available
for cross-examination at trial. In fact, last week the Oregonian re-
ported that the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office
dropped a domestic violence prosecution because the defendant
moved to dismiss the victim’s out-of-court statement under Crawford.
C
ases involving child abuse may be harder to prosecute as well.
Until last week, an Oregon statute admitted hearsay statements
by victims of child abuse who don’t take the stand at trial. Here in
Lane County, many victims of child abuse have given such statements at the Child
Advocacy Center, which provides a safe, non-threatening environment that is vital to the
recovery of severely traumatized children. Advocates for abused children are watching
closely to see how the Crawford decision will affect the important work of the Child
Advocacy Center.
Is Crawford a get-out-of-jail-free card for convicted abusers? The retroactivity of the
ruling is an unsettled issue, but Multnomah County prosecutor Norm Frink said last
week that, “I’m sure every sex abuser in the penitentiary is probably thinking they are
going to get out.” (If Frink’s name sounds familiar, it’s because he handled the prosecu-
tion that transformed Tonya Harding from an Olympic figure skater to a professional
boxer.)
The issue of confrontation is a complex one, and I was disappointed that Justice
Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in Crawford did not address the full breadth of the
issue. Then again, Scalia is not afraid to take sides. Earlier this year he drew criticism for
hunting with Vice President Dick Cheney while a case involving Cheney was pending be-
fore the Supreme Court. Scalia also raised eyebrows when he spoke at a fund-raiser for
an anti-gay group while the Supreme Court was considering whether to strike down an
anti-gay statute in Texas. There’s no word yet on whether Scalia was shooting cans with
batterers the night before he issued the Crawford decision.
I think the Crawford ruling has blown the Confrontation Clause out of proportion,
with potentially tragic results for battered women and abused children. In an effort to
facilitate greater confrontation in court, the Supreme Court may unwittingly have esca-
lated confrontation at home.
Tom Lininger teaches evidence and other subjects at the UO School of Law. In his former job as a federal prosecutor,
Lininger obtained the nation’s first conviction under a 1996 provision of the federal Violence Against Women Act.