Am I wrong, or did something here get mixed up in the opinion editing process?
The Court of Appeal affirms the defendant's convictions, and that result seems right to me. In a child abuse prosecution, you can't help make your children unavailable for trial -- which it seems clear to me (alongside the trial court and the Court of Appeal) that the defendant did -- and then claim a hearsay or Confrontation Clause violation. That's your fault. Forfeiture.
But while the result seems correct, here's how the last paragraph of the first page of the opinion reads:
"Hall concludes that without the children’s statements his convictions on the two child abuse counts lacked evidentiary support. On this point the People do not disagree and instead contend that both the trial court’s evidentiary rulings were correct."
Shouldn't that read "do not agree" (rather than "disagree"), or shouldn't "do not" be deleted (so it reads "the People disagree")?
I wish that I could say I always reviewed my work product one last time -- and did so perfectly -- to make sure I caught all the minor typos. I most definitely cannot so claim. (Not truthfully, anyway.)
POSTSCRIPT - A well-informed reader says that the Court of Appeal probably meant what it said, and I'm persuaded. The People agree that they need the kids' statements, but disagree that the statements were inadmissible. Okay. Got it. Though definitely missed it the first time!
