By TASHA KATES
Published: December 31, 2009
» 0 Comments | Post a Comment
vote
now
Buzz up!
The Court of Appeals of Virginia has upheld convictions against a Manassas man who killed his estranged wife in Charlottesville in November 2004.
The 11-judge court, which reviewed the case earlier this year during an en banc hearing, ruled that the admission of an affidavit during Anthony Dale Crawford’s 2007 trial was not in error. The opinion, which was filed Tuesday, comes a year after a three-judge appellate panel reversed most charges against Crawford, including capital murder.
Steven D. Rosenfield, one of Anthony Crawford’s attorneys, said they could file an appeal with the Virginia Supreme Court with their client’s permission. If the court accepts the appeal, each side will file a brief, present an oral argument and get a decision by the end of 2010.
Rosenfield said Crawford’s attorneys knew that Tuesday’s opinion was a likely outcome.
“They are a very opinionated group of 11 judges,” Rosenfield said. “When we concluded oral argument, we knew for sure that some judges were on our side and some weren’t.”
Dave Chapman, the commonwealth’s attorney in Charlottesville, said his office supports the court’s decision and expects the case will be appealed again.
“In this case, it may take some more time for the victim’s family to know with certainty that the matter has been laid to rest,” Chapman said.
Anthony Crawford, now 50, was sentenced in 2007 to two life terms plus 67 years in prison for capital murder, rape, grand larceny, abduction with intent to defile and firearms charges. Authorities have said Anthony Crawford shot and killed 33-year-old Sarah Louise Crawford, whose body was found in the Quality Inn on Emmet Street.
According to the opinion, Anthony Crawford objected to Sarah Crawford’s affidavit, which was filed in a Northern Virginia court as part of a request for a protective order before her death.
“[Crawford] called me and told me that I must want to die,” the opinion said, quoting the affidavit. “He also said he understands why husbands kill their wives.”
Anthony Crawford made a motion to suppress the document before his trial because he said it was testimonial hearsay. The opinion said the prosecution successfully argued that the court should find that the defendant forfeited his right to confrontation under the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing. The Confrontation Clause is part of the Sixth Amendment that allows people to confront their accusers.
The defendant filed an appeal because the affidavit was submitted and his motion to strike the abduction and rape charges was denied. The three-judge panel reversed all of Anthony Crawford’s convictions except for grand larceny, ruling that the admission of the affidavit violated the defendant’s constitutional rights and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions.
The majority of the 11 appellate judges ruled this week that the trial court incorrectly applied the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine, which was the basis for admitting the affidavit, because it didn’t consider whether Anthony Crawford’s actions intended to prevent his wife from testifying as a witness or seeking help from the court system against him.
“However, because we hold that the statements contained in the affidavit were not testimonial [under a U.S. Supreme Court case], and thus, did not implicate Crawford’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, the trial court’s ultimate admission of the affidavit was not [in] error,” the opinion said.
According to the Virginia Department of Corrections’ online records, Crawford remains held at Sussex I State Prison.
No comments:
Post a Comment