Pg 35 Flashcards
What are the elements of an agent admission as an exception to hearsay?
– statement must concern a matter within the scope of the agency
– statement must have been made during the existence of the agency relationship
An agent admission allows what?
The statement made by an agent to be used against the principal, if the principal is a party
Is it necessary that an agent’s statement be made at work or during business hours in order for agent admission to apply?
No, it is just necessary that the agency relationship existed at the time. This means the agent wasn’t already fired or hadn’t already quit at the time the statement was made
What is necessary to establish foundation for an agent admission?
The person’s statement that they are an agent for the defendant alone is not enough. Certain evidence can be considered to establish foundation, and until that is established, the statement of the agent is just a third-party statement and not a party-opponent admission. The judge considers the agent’s statement as evidence that he was an agent for the purpose of this exemption but there also must be some other evidence of agency to lay the foundation for an agent admission
If a plaintiff sued directTV for not installing a satellite properly, and the plaintiff says, “the man got out of the DIRECTV truck wearing the standard blue uniform with the logo and said, “I’m here for your 9 o’clock appointment.“ Is that enough for establishing foundation for an agent admission as a hearsay exception?
It is necessary that the plaintiff establish that the man was an agent of DIRECTV, who is the defendant. The evidence that is considered to determine this would include the man’s statement that he worked for DIRECTV, the fact that he was driving the defendant’s truck, the uniform with the logo, and coming at the appointed time
What is required for the jury to establish foundation for an agent admission as a hearsay exception?
They must reasonably find the facts show agency
If you were at a bar talking to a guy in normal clothes that says he works for DIRECTV, and he says they love to screw customers, is that statement alone enough to lay foundation for an agent admission?
No, because there’s nothing more than his statement that he works for DIRECTV to lay foundation, and that is not enough
What is the difference in California compared to the FRE for agent admissions as a hearsay exception?
In California the court does not consider the agent’s statement to lay foundation. It cannot be bootstrapped like it can in federal court, so you need other evidence to prove it
What is involved in co-conspirator admission as an exception to hearsay?
This allows a statement to be offered against a party if the statement was made by the party’s co-conspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. Each co-conspirator’s statements can be attributed to the other, and the declarant and party opponent’s membership in the conspiracy is the basis to attribute his statement to the other’s
What are the elements for co-conspirator admission as an exception to hearsay?
– The statement was made during the course of the conspiracy between a declarant and a party
– the statement was made in furtherance of the conspiracy
What does it mean that the statement must be made during the course of the conspiracy between a declarant and a party in order to find co-conspirator admission?
The declarant and the party-opponent must be members of the same conspiracy, the declarant had to have been in the conspiracy when the statement was made, and the party had to have been in the conspiracy when or after the statement was made.
If a party joins after a statement is made, what is the rule under co-conspirator admissions for all of the statements that have been made before that party joined?
They have been adopted by that party
Under the element of co-conspirator admissions that states that the statement must be made in furtherance of the conspiracy, does that include a captured co-conspirator’s statements to the police offering to rat on the co-conspirators?
No, that is not considered to be “in furtherance of the conspiracy.“
What is the rule for establishing foundation for a co-conspirator admission?
The statement of the co-conspirator must be considered, but it doesn’t alone establish the foundation for conspiracy. It is necessary that there is some other evidence of it.
If a defendant is prosecuted for robbing a bank, and a witness testified that X said, “I brought D to help me because he is good at cracking safes.“ Is that permissible to be used as a co-conspirator admission?
X is not the defendant, so for this statement to be used against D as a party appointed admission, it must first be established that X was in a conspiracy with D. In order to lay foundation it is necessary that there be corroborating evidence to back up X’s claims that he was involved. There is nothing here, so it would be considered hearsay because the statement alone is not enough without other evidence to prove that there was a conspiracy
