It's All About Perspective - Bad Week for Clarence Thomas

I have said it before - as a divorce attorney, I can just "sense" when things aren't right between two people.  Maybe it's because I've grown cynical in my job.  Maybe I'm just one of those "wacky" people who just "senses" things.  (Yeah, it's all right - I've been called weird plenty of times before.)  But, it's all about your perspective...

For Clarence Thomas, as for most people going through a tough time at home, when it rains, it pours.  And, Clarence appears to be in the middle of a monsoon, typhoon, tsunami, hurricane, and a few tornadoes this week.

First,  his wife calls Anita Hill.  Then, his "ex-girlfriend" decides to come from behind the curtains, and tell the world about their five-year affair, as well as his affinity for big-breasted women and pornography.  Now, the media reports that his nephew has tried to commit suicide, and had to be restrained and tasered during his hospital admission.

Click here to  read others' thoughts on why Ginny Thomas called Anita Hill.  Note divorce/marital problems are listed as No. 2.  (Yeah, weird people can be right too!)

This is why I tell clients that it's all about perspective.  Always remember that when things go bad, it can always get worse.  Just be thankful you're not a U.S. Supreme Court Justice in the middle of a family melt-down, and the media's current victim focal point.  

Illinois Domestic Violence Cases - Admissibility of 9-1-1 calls

In a domestic violence case, whether it's an Order of Protection, a Civil No-Contact Order, a Restraining Order, or a criminal charge of domestic violence, admissibility of evidence is important.  In particular, officers, dispatchers, and 9-1-1 call tapes can make up a big part of the case, and the testimony.

But, how do you get those tapes into evidence?  If the person isn't there to testify about what happened, it's hearsay and it's not admissible.  Furthermore, in Crawford v. Davis, 541, U.S. 36, 53-54 (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court talked about the inadmissibility of evidence as hearsay when it's "testimonial" or created for the purposes of litigation.  


And the argument has been made that 9-1-1 calls are testimonial because they are given by an individual who is being questioned by an agent of law enforcement, i.e., a dispatcher who answers the phone at the police department.  However, the U.S. Supreme Court determined in Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006), that 9-1-1 calls are not "testimonial" when the person is frantic, is calling for help for an immediate emergency, and is not calmly answering questions put forth by an agent of law enforcement for the purposes of future litigation.  The U.S. Supreme Court held that it's one thing to calmly answer questions in an interview, but it's quite another when a person is screaming into the phone for help because someone is trying to hurt them, or someone in their presence.  Id.

In Illinois, the First Circuit held that a 9-1-1 call, pursuant to the Supreme Court's ruling in Davis, did not constitute "testimonial hearsay" when the contact with the dispatcher was volunteered for the purpose of initiating police action or criminal prosecution.  People v West, 311 Ill.App.3d 28 (1st Dist. 2005).

Also remember that such testimony can be admissible under the "excited utterance" hearsay exception, as well as the "business records" exception.  It can also be admissible under the "past recollection recorded" hearsay exception.   In a custody case, or an Order of Protection case, there are few things that sway a judge more than hearing a 9-1-1 call in which a frightened individual is reporting an incident of violence.