For forfeiture by wrongdoing, which statement is correct?

For forfeiture by wrongdoing, which statement is correct?

• A. The defendant must have intentionally caused or acquiesced to the witness's unavailability.
• B. The witness must die for the rule to apply.
• C. Forfeiture applies automatically without any showing of intent.
• D. Forfeiture only applies if the witness is missing for reasons unrelated to the defendant.

Answer: (A)

Forfeiture by wrongdoing rests on the idea that a party cannot use a witness’s absence as a shield when that absence was caused by the party’s own misconduct. The key point is that the defendant must have intentionally caused or knowingly acquiesced in the witness’s unavailability. If the defendant’s actions are what kept the witness from testifying, the defendant forfeits the right to object to the witness’s testimony. That’s why choosing the option that describes intentional causing or acquiescing to the unavailability is correct. It isn’t about the witness dying or the absence being due to some unrelated reason, and it isn’t automatic without showing any intent. The rule targets situations where the defendant’s wrongdoing—the deliberate acts or deliberate tolerance of the witness’s absence—led to the witness not testifying.

Forfeiture by wrongdoing rests on the idea that a party cannot use a witness’s absence as a shield when that absence was caused by the party’s own misconduct. The key point is that the defendant must have intentionally caused or knowingly acquiesced in the witness’s unavailability. If the defendant’s actions are what kept the witness from testifying, the defendant forfeits the right to object to the witness’s testimony.

That’s why choosing the option that describes intentional causing or acquiescing to the unavailability is correct. It isn’t about the witness dying or the absence being due to some unrelated reason, and it isn’t automatic without showing any intent. The rule targets situations where the defendant’s wrongdoing—the deliberate acts or deliberate tolerance of the witness’s absence—led to the witness not testifying.