Whether the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception to the Confrontation Clause encompasses acts of wrongful witness procurement done by alleged co-conspirators, without the intent or participation of the defendant

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW After United States v. Cherry, 217 F.3d 811 (10th Cir. 2000), a growing number of courts have held that a defendant’s right to be confronted by accusers can be forfeited based on conspiracy liability. Under this line of cases, a defendant can lose the confrontation right without any personal knowledge of, or participation in, the wrongful witness procurement. In Giles v. California, however, this Court held that a defendant forfeits the confrontation right only by engaging in “conduct designed to prevent a witness from testifying.” 554 U.S. 353, 365 (2008) (emphasis omitted). Since Giles, courts have split over the continued viability of conspiracy-based forfeiture. The question presented is: Whether the exception to the Confrontation Clause encompasses acts of wrongful witness procurement done by alleged co-conspirators, without the intent or participation of the defendant. i