People v. Bacon
Issue: What does it take to get a court to confront the confrontation clause?
Held: Counsel’s recitation of chapter and verse, and nothing less, apparently.
CAL Observes:
CAL client Zavearr Bacon was alleged to have assaulted two complainants in a drug dispute. At trial, only non-witness police officers testified. They told the jury what the complainants told them about what happened. The Court of Appeals did not address whether that was a confrontation clause violation because it found the confrontation issue unpreserved. Counsel’s statement that “we do not have the complainants” and there was “no ability to cross-examine” them, wasn’t enough. A slim majority reasoned that the import of counsel’s objection was to challenge the adequacy of the evidence not to vindicate the confrontation right—a real hair splitter since no one in their right mind would fail to see that the complainants’ absence violated Mr. Bacon’s right to confront them. We include the caveat “no one in their right mind” because the appellate division did conclude, somehow, that there was no confrontation violation. This whole case was a huge disappointment. Fortunately, Mr. Bacon is doing really well.