Crawford Flashcards
Immediately after the blast the St. Louis police began to receive 911 calls. While most simply told of an explosion, one included a description of a person seen just before the blast placing something on a tank car at the AB site. The description closely matches defendant Gerald Garnosio. In the excitement and the rush of calls, the 911 operator did not get a name of the caller. The prosecution wishes to use this call, which was recorded, in evidence, but the defendant’s object. How should the judge rule and why?
Issue of if emergency is ongoing: argument that exposition already happened but argue it is ongoing, say panic period of people being wounded, the hazardous materials of gas; if he has one bomb may have another bomb; has hundreds of victims while Bryan only had one victim; IS EMERGENCY ONGOING?
Probably the functional equivalent of an officer
The St. Louis police flood the area of the blast looking for witnesses and evidence. One of the people they speak with is Joe Greene, a maintenance worker at the Clark Brothers, who was on his break and was watching the train cars at the AB site. He gives a detailed description of the activities of two men he saw walking around the tank cars just minutes before the blast. This included his seeing them coming in contact with the cars and then running from the site. Weeks later he is later able to identify Gerald Garnosio in a photo array as one of the two men he saw. He dies of a drug overdose before trial. The government wishes to have the St. Louis police officer who interviewed Greene testify about what Greene said and about the later photo ID. Defendants object. How should the judge rule and why?
Statement: conversation with police was testimonial; trying to find suspects; argue other way: trying to catch guy to end emergency; comes down to what questions were asked: More lets stop the emergency or more investigate the crime? ALLOW PROBABLY
Photo ID: Argue it is not hearsay by 801(d)(1)(a): Photo ID; problem because witness did not testify and is not available for cross
Crawford does not apply if it is not Hearsay
AB wishes to have the same officer give the same testimony in the civil action to link the criminal defendants to the explosions. The criminal defendants (whom AB has joined in the civil case) object. How should the judge rule and why?
Doesn’t matter Crawford has no application to Civil Case
Albert Spear can give testimony about his sale of potassium permanganate to the defendants. He has been interviewed by the ATF before trial. On the eve of trial he is found murdered. The government wishes to introduce his statements under FRE 804, claiming that the defendants cannot object as they had Spear killed to quiet him. What will the government need to show the judge to be allowed to introduce this testimony?
Show evidence defendants intended to make Spear absent, killed him for the reason to keep him from testifying; Argue admissible as non-hearsay because it is in furtherance of conspiracy (this will probably get it in)
AB wishes to have the same ATF agent give the same testimony in the civil action to link the criminal defendants to the explosions. The criminal defendants (whom AB has joined in the civil case) object. How should the judge rule and why?
Crawford doesn’t apply to civil case
