Evidence Commons^™

The Excited Utterance Paradox, Steven Baicker-Mckee

Seattle University Law Review

Based on nothing more than John Henry Wigmore’s personal belief that a witness under the throes of excitement is unable to fabricate an untruthful statement, the excited utterance exception allows parties to present out-of-court statements to the jury or judge without any of the safeguards the judicial system uses to promote honest and accurate testimony. This Article collects and examines much of the scientific evidence bearing on Wigmore’s premise and identifies two paradoxical conclusions that undermine the exception. First, the premise itself is unfounded; science absolutely does not support the notion that a witness is incapable of lying while emotionally …

Hearsay And The Confrontation Clause (2017), Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

This material is a part of a lecture delivered at the Maryland Judicial Center on May 11, 2017. It is an update of previous versions available at the following locations:

2016: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac/955/

2012: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac/924/

The material is a series of flowcharts that explain the nuances of hearsay law and the confrontation clause under Maryland law.

The Cost Of Ab 193: Constitutional Guarantees Sacrificed For Ineffective Means, Paul George

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Using Prior Consistent Statements To Rehabilitate Credibility Or To Prove Substantive Assertions Before And After The 2014 Amendment Of Federal Rule Of Evidence 801(D)(1)(B), Floralynn Einesman

Faculty Scholarship

The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) expanded the non-hearsay category of admissible prior consistent statements with FRE 801(d)(1)(B)(ii) to include any statements counsel uses to rehabilitate a declarant’s credibility after that credibility has been attacked. FREV 801(d)(1)(B)(i) and (ii) require that a declarant testify and be subjected to cross-examination about the prior consistent statement. Under these rules, the time at which the declarant made the consistent statement and her reason for making it are critical.

When the declarant does not testify, however, under FRE 806 opposing counsel may still attack the declarant’s credibility. Under these circumstances, it is often challenging …