On my birthday in 2021, Ashanti Hines was shot and killed as she sat in her car in Elkhart, Indiana. She was not the intended target.
ShotSpotter detected the shooting and alerted police, who responded to the scene and collected fired cartridge casings. Witnesses saw a silver car depart the area after the shooting. Police pursued a silver Chevy Malibu but the driver escaped.
A little while later and unrelated to this, police conducting surveillance in South Bend saw Quadir Quiroz on the front porch of a residence holding a firearm. Quiroz had an outstanding arrest warrant so they surrounded the house and called everyone out.
Everyone but Quiroz came out immediately. When Quiroz finally emerged, he had insulation in his hair. Guess why. Yes, he hid the gun in the attic. Police found it and a forensic examination matched it to casings from Ashanti’s murder.
Police learned that Quiroz had bragged about getting in a shootout the night Ashanti was killed, and in Facebook messages said he was in a high-speed chase in a silver Chevy Malibu.
Long story short: He was arrested for the murder.
A detective conducted a videotaped interview of an inmate known as “Brazo,” who said Quiroz killed Ashanti. But Brazo was locked up with “Chop,” an associate of Quiroz. Another long story short: at Quiroz’s urging, Chop threatened to beat up Brazo for snitching.
Brazo didn’t want to get Chopped so he STFU. He refused to testify, even when granted immunity and threatened with contempt. So the court found the witness was “unavailable” and admitted the videotaped interview with the detective instead.
Quiroz objected, arguing that violated his Sixth Amendment right to “confront” witnesses against him. I’ve written about the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause many times. (See, e.g., here (https://lnkd.in/g8cdBeHC) and here (https://lnkd.in/gKJsNhB4).)
It isn’t absolute. In this case, the trial court said, “sorry but your threats caused the unavailability.” The video came in and Quiroz was convicted.
I’ve also written about “forfeiture by wrongdoing” before but it’s been a while. (https://lnkd.in/g69W3GGt). That was the basis for the trial court’s decision to admit the video. Quiroz appealed but the Court of Appeals of Indiana upheld the the lower court. The government met its burden showing the witness was unavailable. No Confrontation Clause violation. Quiroz stays convicted.
This opinion was filed in July but just hit my Westlaw alert. You can read it here: https://lnkd.in/gCt8KdAb.