Case Law Holdings

Question 1

Pena-Rodriguez –

Answer 1

it is possible to inquire about jury deliberations when there’s a credible report of a racist comment.

Question 2

Abel –

Answer 2

bias is always relevant and we will tolerate a high degree of prejudice with bias

Question 3

Luce –

Answer 3

A pre-trial motion in limine to exclude a conviction is not enough to preserve the issue for appeal, unless the defendant testifies and is impeached

Question 4

Harris –

Answer 4

An unmirandized, post-arrest statement can’t be used in the governments case-in-chief unless the defendant testifies and says the opposite. (Impeachment with a prior inconsistent statement that was unmirandized)(have protection of miranda until you say the opposite)

Question 5

Havens –

Answer 5

Harris but for physical evidence. Unlawfully seized physical evidence is not admissible in the governments case-in-chief unless the defendant testifies and contradicts the physical evidence.

Question 6

Hillmon –

Answer 6

state of mind exception – can intent be a state of mind under 803(3)? – yes. Allows a statement regarding a persons then-existing state of mind.

Question 7

Doyle -

Answer 7

Post-miranda silence is not admissible

Question 8

Didn’t catch Case name -

Answer 8

An incarcerated prisoner is not unavailable to the government.

Question 9

Williamson -

Answer 9

Statement against interest exception 804 – a post arrest statement to law enforcement naming/implicating a co-defendant probably is NOT a statement against interest. If anything, it’s a statement to promote his own interest.

Question 10

Bruton –

Answer 10

a post arrest statement to law enforcement implicating a co-defendant is not admissible without cross-examination.

Question 11

Crawford –

Answer 11

When the government offers testimonial hearsay against the accused, that evidence is inadmissible unless there is an opportunity for cross-examination. Statement is testimonial if they are talking to a known Law enforcement audience or indications of formality that indicate the statement is being preserved for later prosecutorial future use.

Question 12

Davis –

Answer 12

Ongoing emergency exception – a statement elicited by law enforcement in the investigation of an ongoing emergency is not testimonial and therefore not subject to cross-examination.

Question 13

Giles –

Answer 13

Forefeiture by wrongdoing – A defendant does not forfeit confrontation rights by killing the declarant unless the defendant did so for the specific purpose of silencing the witness.

Question 14

Daubert –

Answer 14

we are not letting in scientific evidence unless its both helpful and reliable. Realiable means: realiable inputs, reliable methods, and reliable application. No longer must a technique be generally accepted.

Question 15

Cuomo Tire –

Answer 15

Daubert applies to non-scientific expert testimony.

Question 16

Meyers –

Answer 16

Best evidence case – An incidental recording need not be produced under the best evidence doctrine