one shall be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong, then the motivation for the wrongdoing must be deemed irrelevant.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {21} Other courts have stated the intent to silence requirement as an element of their forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine, but those courts have generally not analyzed the relative benefits of adopting or not adopting that element. See, e.g., United States v. Houlihan, 92 F.3d 1271, 1279 (1st Cir.1996) (“[A] defendant who wrongfully procures a witness’s absence for the purpose of denying the government that witness’s testimony waives his right under the Confrontation Clause to object to the admission of the absent witness’s hearsay statements.”); Commonwealth v. Edwards, 444 Mass. 526, 830 N.E.2d 158, 170 (2005) (<HOLDING>); State v. Wright, 701 N.W.2d 802, 814-15
recognizing doctrine holding that the plaintiff bears the burden to show that the defendant acted with intent to deceive holding that counsel was not deficient in failing to call a witness where the defendant never provided the witnesss name to counsel and no evidence existed that counsel had any notice of the witnesss identity holding the doctrine applicable where the defendant acted with the intent to procure the witnesss unavailability holding that the state must show that the defendant intended or was motivated in part to procure a witnesss unavailability