1 / 24

Prof. Janicke 2012

HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS THAT ARE LESS RELIABLE: RULE 804: DECLARATIONS BY PERSONS WHO ARE NOW UNAVAILABLE. Prof. Janicke 2012. THOUGHT TO BE WEAKER. RULES DRAFTERS (AND COMMON LAW) DEVELOPED A SET OF HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS THAT COULD BE USED ONLY WHEN THE DECLARANT IS UNAVAILABLE AT TRIAL

jarrod-bennett
Télécharger la présentation

Prof. Janicke 2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS THAT ARE LESS RELIABLE:RULE 804: DECLARATIONS BY PERSONS WHO ARE NOW UNAVAILABLE Prof. Janicke 2012

  2. THOUGHT TO BE WEAKER • RULES DRAFTERS (AND COMMON LAW) DEVELOPED A SET OF HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS THAT COULD BE USED ONLY WHEN THE DECLARANT IS UNAVAILABLE AT TRIAL • A COMPROMISE BETWEEN OUTRIGHT EXCLUSION AND OUTRIGHT ADMISSIBILITY

  3. MEANING OF “UNAVAILABLE” • WITHOUT ANY CONNIVANCE BY PROPONENT, DECLARANT IS: • NOT FINDABLE • REFUSES TO ATTEND • REFUSES TO ANSWER EVEN WHEN DIRECTED BY COURT • HAS A LOSS OF MEMORY • IS DEAD • IS INCAPACITATED MENTALLY OR PHYSICALLY

  4. PROBLEMS/CASES • 4L

  5. FORMER TESTIMONY • AT A HEARING OR DEPOSITION IN THIS OR ANOTHER CASE • NOW-OPPONENT MUST HAVE HAD OPPORTUNITY AND MOTIVE TO CROSS-EXAMINE • DIRECTLY, or • THROUGH A PARTY WITH SIMILAR INTEREST (CIVIL CASES ONLY)

  6. SOME THINGS THAT WON’T QUALIFY • AFFIDAVITS [NOT A HEARING OR DEPOSITION; NO CHANCE TO CROSS-EXAMINE] • GRAND JURY TESTIMONY [NO CHANCE TO CROSS-EXAMINE]

  7. SOME THINGS THAT WILL QUALIFY • NON-PARTY TESTIMONY AT EARLIER TRIAL OF THIS CASE • NON-PARTY TESTIMONY AT A DEPOSITION IN THIS OR ANOTHER CASE (WHERE OPPONENT WAS PARTY) • NON-PARTY TESTIMONY AT A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING IN THIS CASE

  8. NOTE – A PARTY’S TESTIMONY DOESN’T NEED THIS EXCEPTION • IF OFFERED BY THE ADVERSE PARTY, CAN BE OFFERED FREELY, REGARDLESS OF PRIOR OATH OR CROSS-EXAM • IF IT IS HER OWN FORMER TESTIMONY, THE PROPONENT PARTY IS “AVAILABLE” -- CAN TESTIFY LIVE AGAIN

  9. DYING DECLARATIONS • BASIS: NO ONE WOULD FALSIFY WHILE SOON TO MEET HIS MAKER • REQUIREMENTS: • HOMICIDE OR CIVIL CASE • DECLARANT THOUGHT HE WAS DYING IMMINENTLY (NOT “GOING TO BE SHOT” SOME VAGUE FUTURE TIME) • STATEMENT WAS RE. CAUSE OF THE IMPENDING DEATH (i.e., WHODUNIT)

  10. VICTIM’S RECOVERY DOESN’T MAKE A DYING DECLARATION INADMISSIBLE • BUT THE VICTIM-DECLARANT HAS TO BE “UNAVAILABLE” AT TRIAL

  11. EXAMPLE • IN A HOMICIDE CASE: “JACK DID IT!!” • IN A WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION: “BOB SHOT ME IN SELF-DEFENSE” • IN A WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION: “I NEVER SHOULD HAVE EATEN THOSE OYSTERS”

  12. THIRD PARTY ADMISSIONS • STATEMENT THAT WAS AGAINST INTEREST • PECUNIARY • PENAL • MADE BY A NON-PARTY • MOST ARE OFFERED BY DEFENDANTS, CIVIL AND CRIMINAL, THROUGH WITNESSES • OFFERED TO DEFLECT BLAME

  13. EXAMPLES OF NON-PARTY ADMISSIONS OFFERED BY D, THROUGH WITNESSES: • TESTIMONY: “NONPARTY X SAID: ‘OUR TECHNICIAN WIRED IT WRONG’” • NONPARTY X CO’S DOCUMENT RECALLING X’S AUTOS FOR DEFECTIVE FUEL LINES • TESTIMONY: “NONPARTY X SAID: ‘SORRY WE BLEW UP YOUR HOUSE’”

  14. RESTRICTION ON NON-PARTY ADMISSIONS • WHEN OFFERED TO EXCULPATE A CRIMINAL ACCUSED: • MUST HAVE CORROBORATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT “CLEARLY INDICATE ITS TRUSTWORTHINESS” • MOST CASES HOLD THEM INADMISSIBLE • BASED ON A GENERAL MISTRUST OF THE CRIMINAL COMMUNITY

  15. PROBLEMS/CASES • 4M

  16. OUT OF COURT STATEMENT RE. FAMILY HISTORY • EXAMPLE: TESTIMONY THAT “MY MOTHER TOLD ME I WAS HARRY’S SON” • EXAMPLE: TESTIMONY THAT “HIS FATHER TOLD ME HE WAS BORN IN THE NAVAL HOSPITAL AT NEWPORT” • NOTE: RECALL THAT DECLARANT (MOTHER, FATHER) MUST BE UNAVAILABLE

  17. DECLARATIONS BY PERSONS WHO HAVE SINCE BEEN “RUBBED OUT” • IF THE REMOVER IS A PARTY, THESE ARE NOW ADMISSIBLE AGAINST HIM • EXAMPLES: • EARLIER AFFIDAVIT • EARLIER GRAND JURY TESTIMONY • EARLIER ORAL REMARK • EARLIER LETTER

  18. DECLARANTS ARE IMPEACHABLE • THEY ARE TREATED JUST LIKE WITNESSES • TO PREVENT ABUSIVE USE OF EXCEPTIONS • SAME RULES OF IMPEACHMENT

  19. THE “CATCHALL”: RULE 807 • FOR THE “ALMOST” SITUATIONS • FOR THE UNPREPARED LAWYER WHO DOESN’T KNOW HOW TO REFUTE A HEARSAY OBJECTION • FOR THE JUDGE WHO WANTS TO BE BULLETPROOF ON APPEAL

  20. REQUIREMENTS: • EVIDENCE OF A “MATERIAL FACT” • ??? • MORE PROBATIVE THAN ANYTHING ELSE REASONABLY AVAILABLE • A HAVEN FOR THE UNPREPARED • IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE • ADVANCE NOTICE REQUIRED

  21. COURT EFFECTIVELY REWRITES THE HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS • USUALLY SEEN IN CIVIL CASES

  22. PROBLEMS/CASES • Weaver

  23. A PROBLEM WITH SIXTH AMENDMENT CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, WHEN HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS ARE USED BY PROSECUTORS • CRAWFORD v. WASHINGTON • “TESTIMONIAL” TYPE HEARSAY MUST BE KEPT OUT OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, DESPITE RULES 803, 804

  24. PROBLEMS/CASES • Crawford • Exercise #13

More Related