Hearsay Exceptions Flashcards
What are the four FRE Rules that contain Hearsay Exceptions
FRE 801 (1) (A)(B)(C)–> Opposing parties prior statements
FRE 801 (2)--> Opposing party's statement --> includes admissions doctrine
FRE 803–> Unrestricted
FRE 804–> Statements by una
What is the Confrontation Clause?
the accused has the right “to be confronted with the Witnessess against him” in criminal cases
The right of confrontation is a constitutional right and may trump hearsay exceptions.
What happened in Crawford and what is the Crawford Doctrine?
Woman makes statement during police investigation: the man (my husband beat up) was unarmed.
Court Held: Statement is hearsay but against her interest, therefore it is a Hearsay Exception!
BUT: Crawford Doctrine States….if evidence is testimonial, you have a constitutional right to cross examine the declarant
What are two ways to define “testimonial evidence”
1) Formal Statements: affidavits, custodial exams, prior testimony not subject to cross, criminal investigation (Crawford)
2) Statements which would lead an objective witness to reasonably believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial
State v. Smith: what is the score of “other proceedings” under FRE 801 (1) (A)
Holding: Criminal investigations where minimal gaurentees of truthfulness are met constitute “other proceedings” under the rule…here a police report was “other proceedings” because it was made under oath and notarized
Factors
1) made under oath, before a notary, or perjury
2) Used for purpose of impeachment or not
3) whether or not youd needed the original oportunity to cross or if the adverse party can deny it otherwise
NOTE: ACN notes say jailhouse interviews not always admissable though…look to factors
What are the three new points on Crawford?
1) Full use of statements by persons who can be cross-examined
Note: Prior Opportunity to cross can satisfy!
2) Crawford and Davis approve forfeiture exception in FRE 804(b)(6)
Note: Can’t use non-availble exception if you prevent someone from testifying
3) Nonhearsay use does not offend Confrontation Clause
- -> Coconspirators nonhearsay use doesn’t receive confrontation same with dying dec
When a declarant says he has amenesia, is he cross-examinable?
It depends on the circumstances of the case…
But under 801 (d) statements used for Impeachment, if present and able to remember some events then good enough.
How does Owens v. US view amnesia and cross-examination?
Not really
State v. Motta–> Composite Sketches
ada
