Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that for testimonial statements to be admissible under the forfeiture exception to hearsay, the defendant must have intended to make the witness unavailable for trial.
The rule excluding hearsay arises from a concern regarding the statement's reliability. Courts have four principal concerns with the reliability of witness statements: the witness may be lying (sincerity risk), the witness may have misunderstood the situation (narration risk), the witness's memory may be wrong (memory risk), and the witness's perception was inaccurate (perception risk). [8]
"Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." [1] Per Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(a), a statement made by a defendant is admissible as evidence only if it is inculpatory; exculpatory statements made to an investigator are hearsay and therefore may not be admitted as ...
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay statements in criminal cases is permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.
Generally speaking, hearsay is not admissible in a court hearing or trial, unless it meets certain criteria, which can change from state to state. For example, in the 1997 Illinois case People vs Holloway , the defendant took the case to appeal on the basis that one of the witnesses to appear at the trial was a hearsay witness: the witness was ...
The rationale for a party admission exception to hearsay exclusion can be mostly easily understood by reference to the rationale for the hearsay rule itself. Affidavit evidence consisting of out-of-court statements is not subject to cross-examination. Affidavit evidence is thought to detract from the truth-finding mission of a trial.
Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay–Regardless of Whether the Declarant is Available as a Witness; Rule 804. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay–when the Declarant is Unavailable as a Witness; Rule 805. Hearsay Within Hearsay; Rule 806. Attacking and Supporting the Declarant's Credibility; Rule 807. Residual Exceptions
In American substantive law, it refers to the period of a felony from start-to-end. In American procedural law, it refers to a former exception to the hearsay rule for statements made spontaneously or as part of an act. The English and Canadian version of res gestae is similar, but is still recognized as a traditional exception to the hearsay rule.