Due Process and Hearsay

Question 1

Due Process and Hearsay

Answer 1

• due process requires the admission of some evidence offered by a criminal defendant, even if the hearsay rule (or other rules of evidence) would otherwise prohibit use of the statements

Question 2

Chambers v. Mississippi - Facts

Answer 2

• Chambers accused of shooting a policeman
• another man (McDonald) gave a sworn confession to an officer, then repudiated, saying he’d made the whole thing up
• at trial, Chambers wasn’t allowed to cross-examine McDonald or to offer the testimony of three witnesses who had heard McDonald confess at various points
• Chambers appealed, saying the evidentiary rules had made his trial so unfair that he was deprived of due process

Question 3

Chambers - Holding

Answer 3

• Chambers should have been allowed to cross-examine McDonald, and should have been allowed to offer the testimony of what McDonald said
• there were sufficient indicia of trustworthiness in the corroborating testimony, and McDonald was available at trial to refute anything he believed was false

Question 4

Chambers - Rule

Answer 4

When constitutional rights directly affecting the ascertainment of guilt are implicated, the hearsay rule may not be applied mechanistically to defeat the ends of justice

• right to confront and cross-examine those who give damaging testimony against you in a criminal trial is fundamental, regardless of who called the witness
• the right of the accused to present witnesses in his own defense is fundamental (as long as the testimony is crucial to the defense and has indicia of trustworthiness)

Question 5

Chambers and State Court

Answer 5

• due process because state court conviction -> need to go through due process to get at the 6th Amendment rights

Question 6

Chambers - Eval Under Fed Rules of Evidence

Answer 6

• could likely only come in to impeach under federal rules of evidence, not for the truth, but could argue 807 residual exception

Question 7

Fortini v. Murphy - Facts

Answer 7

• Fortini isn’t allowed to present evidence that his shooting was in self-defense (his victim assaulted four men on the basketball court right before the shooting)
• he claims a Chambers violation

Question 8

Fortini - Holding

Answer 8

• the exclusion here doesn’t rise to the level of a Chambers violation
• Chambers cases involve highly probative evidence absolutely critical to the defense
• evidence here was relevant to the defense, but not crucial, + it was indirect
• “The evidence at best does not more than increase somewhat the likelihood of a lunge, already the subject of Fortini’s direct testimony; and the risk of unfair prejudice to the prosecution was real even if many courts would not have chosen to exclude the evidence on this ground.”

Question 9

Fortini - Rule

Answer 9

• the Chambers rule can only be invoked in extreme cases
• a state law justification for exclusion will prevail unless it is arbitrary or disproportionate and infringes upon a weighty interest of the accused
• if the evidence was rejected for a conventionally plausible reason, the defendant faces an uphill struggle