Pg 36

Question 1

What is involved in the limits on the admissibility of admissions as a category of party opponent admissions?

Answer 1

Just because a statement is an admission doesn’t always mean it is admissible. Statements can overcome a hearsay objection and still get excluded

Question 2

If a police officer gets a defendant to admit to a crime, but he violates the D’s Miranda rights, can the prosecution offer the admission as a party opponent admission?

Answer 2

No, because even though it overcame a hearsay objection, it will still get excluded due to the Miranda violation

Question 3

How does public policy factor into party opponent admissions?

Answer 3

Sometimes an admission is not admissible if there’s another basis to exclude it, like it is against public policy

Question 4

If there is a sexual harassment suit between an employee and the boss and the boss says he never slept with the employee, but the employee tries to offer testimony that the boss said, “how about I pay you $10,000 to forget you turned me down and that I reacted so badly?“ Would that be admissible as a party opponent admission?

Answer 4

No, because of public policy reasons

Question 5

What’s the difference between non-hearsay and hearsay falling within an exception or exemption?

Answer 5

Nonhearsay is an out-of-court statement that is NOT offered for its truth, but offered instead for some other purpose. Whereas an exception is an out-of-court statement that IS offered for its truth, but it is still allowed

Question 6

If a multiple choice question has something that is exempted from hearsay, but no answer choice says “hearsay falling within an exemption/exclusion“ then what is the best answer to pick?

Answer 6

Nonhearsay

Question 7

What is the difference between 803 and 804 when it comes to true exceptions to hearsay?

Answer 7

• 803: it doesn’t matter if the declarant is unavailable to testify or not
  – 804: requires the declarant be unavailable

Question 8

What are the different types of true exceptions to hearsay?

Answer 8

Oral exceptions, statements of condition, and written exceptions

Question 9

What is another word for oral exceptions as a category of exceptions to hearsay?

Answer 9

Blurting exceptions

Question 10

What are blurting exceptions to hearsay?

Answer 10

Oral exceptions that are admitted because the statement has added reliability since it was made under circumstances that people lack the presence of mind/motive to fabricate the facts

Question 11

What are the different blurting exceptions to hearsay?

Answer 11

– Statements against interest
– dying declarations
– excited utterances
– present sense impressions

Question 12

What is involved in the category of exceptions to hearsay that allows statements against interest?

Answer 12

This is an exception for statements if the declarant is unavailable when a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would’ve made the statement only if they believed it to be true because, when it was made, it was so contrary to the declarant’s proprietary or pecuniary interest or had such a tendency to invalidate the declarant’s claim against someone else or to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability that it is thought to be reliable

Question 13

What is the extra requirement for criminal cases when a statement against interest is at play?

Answer 13

They must be supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly show their trustworthiness, and they must tend to expose the declarant to criminal liability

Question 14

What is the rationale behind statements against interest being an exception to hearsay?

Answer 14

People do not usually say things that hurt them unless they are true

Question 15

What are the elements for the hearsay exception of statements against interest?

Answer 15

– The declarant be unavailable to testify in court
– the statement must be against the defendant’s financial, civil, or criminal legal interest
– for criminal cases only, corroboration is required

Question 16

What are some reasons that a declarant would be unavailable to testify in court, which would meet the unavailability element for statements against interest as a hearsay exception?

Answer 16

Because of death, illness, inability to remember/recall what happened, inability to secure attendance/testimony through process/reasonable means, out of the jurisdiction/beyond subpoena power, witness is in court but the testimony cannot be gotten because of privilege, witness refuses to testify

Question 17

In order for the unavailability element of statements against interest to apply, what is necessary if the declarant is absent from the trial/hearing?

Answer 17

The proponents had to have not been able to secure his attendance/testimony through process or other means, and the proponent must try to get him to go to court but be unable to despite reasonable means

Question 18

If an attorney wants a client to testify about an out-of-court statement against interest made by the declarant, but the attorney didn’t bother to subpoena the declarant, and the declarant doesn’t go to court to testify, would he be considered “unavailable” in a civil case under statements against interest as a hearsay exception?

Answer 18

No, because the attorney didn’t show that he couldn’t by process/reasonable means procure his attendance

Question 19

If a declarant is on vacation beyond the jurisdictional reach of subpoena power, and the attorney could have preserved his testimony before he left, but didn’t, would that declarant be considered to be “unavailable“ for a statement against interest in a civil case?

Answer 19

No, because in a civil case if a party had the opportunity to take someone’s deposition or preserve their testimony under oath before the trial and they failed to, that can be held against them even if they acted in good faith but couldn’t get them to testify at the trial itself

Question 20

What is the difference between California and the FRE regarding unavailability as an element of statements against interest?

Answer 20

California says that the attorney didn’t have to take the declarant’s deposition, whereas the FRE says that if a party had the opportunity to take a deposition/preserve the testimony under oath before trial and didn’t, that can be held against them

Question 21

What is involved in the element of statements against interest as a hearsay exception that requires that the statement be against the declarant’s financial, civil, or criminal legal interest?

Answer 21

The statement was so far against the declarant’s legal or financial interests that a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would not have made the statement unless they believed it was true.

Question 22

If there was a car accident and the defendant cannot introduce Z’s statement because he is now dead, that after the accident Z said to D, “this wasn’t your fault.“ Would that statement be admissible as a statement against interest as a hearsay exception?

Answer 22

No, because this is not a statement against Z’s interest

Question 23

If after a car accident a plaintiff’s witness was the defendant’s passenger and said the defendant shouldn’t have driven with his eyes closed, would that be admissible as a statement against interest which is a hearsay exception?

Answer 23

No, because this isn’t a statement against the passenger’s interest, so it doesn’t count

Question 24

What is the very important thing for statements against interest as a hearsay exception?

Answer 24

That the statement has to be against the declarant’s interest. It isn’t enough if it is just in someone else’s interest since people lie for their friends.

It doesn’t count if it is against someone else’s interest either because people lie to hurt their enemies. But people do not usually lie to hurt themselves

Question 25

If after a car accident, a mechanic tells the victim that the mechanic sabotaged the brakes. Would that be admitted as the hearsay exception for statements against interest?

Answer 25

Yes

Question 26

If after a car accident a mechanic who worked on the car said that the defendant smoked crack right before the accident, would that be admissible as a statement against interest for the hearsay exception?

Answer 26

No, because the statement is not against the mechanic’s interest

Question 27

What is the difference between California and FRE for the element of “statement must be against the declarant’s interest” for the hearsay exception of statements against interest to apply?

Answer 27

The FRE only says the statement must be against the declarant’s financial, civil, or criminal legal interests, but in California it also includes social interests