Justices Weigh If Accusers Must Testify in Court

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in particular, seemed worried about the implications for other cases in which women tell police about abuse but then are reluctant to risk a court appearance.

"The practical reality is that many women are scared to death of what will happen to them," she told Davis's attorney, Jeffrey L. Fisher. "So neat legal categories don't really fit the realities of this situation."

Ginsburg repeatedly suggested that the court consider a rule proposed by the Bush administration: that statements made to authorities during "emergencies" be admissible.

But Fisher replied that although he did not want to appear "insensitive," the "Sixth Amendment applies across the board."

The court's newest member, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., a former prosecutor, also seemed to lean in favor of the states. He asked lawyers for the defendants questions that implied they were asking for too broad a rule.

"If someone calls and says 'I just saw a blue Toyota with Ohio plates do a hit-and-run,' is that testimony?" he asked at one point.

"Yes," replied Hammon's lawyer, Richard D. Friedman.

But Scalia noted that "it seems to me that there are better ways to solve the problem than to design our whole confrontation-clause jurisprudence based on what happens in spousal abuse cases." The confrontation clause is the part of the Sixth Amendment that guarantees the defendant's right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

Decisions in the two cases are expected by July.