Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Evidence Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Hearsay

Discipline
Institution
Publication Year
Publication
Publication Type
File Type

Articles 1 - 30 of 183

Full-Text Articles in Evidence

Why Do We Admit Criminal Confessions Into Evidence?, David Crump Sep 2019

Why Do We Admit Criminal Confessions Into Evidence?, David Crump

Seattle University Law Review

There is an enormous literature about the admissibility of criminal confessions. But almost all of it deals with issues related to self-incrimination or, to a lesser extent, with hearsay or accuracy concerns. As a result, the question whether we ever admit criminal confessions into evidence has not been the subject of much analysis. This gap is odd, since confessions are implicitly disfavored by a proportion of the literature and they often collide with exclusionary doctrines. Furthermore, the self-incrimination issue sometimes is resolved by balancing, and it would help if we knew what we were balancing. Therefore, one might ask: Why ...


Hearsay In The Smiley Face: Analyzing The Use Of Emojis As Evidence, Erin Janssen Jun 2018

Hearsay In The Smiley Face: Analyzing The Use Of Emojis As Evidence, Erin Janssen

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming


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 Feb 2018

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

Floralynn Einesman

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 ...


Hearsay And Abuse: Where Past Is Present, The Hon. Andrea M. Leahy, Jared A. Mclain Esq. Jan 2018

Hearsay And Abuse: Where Past Is Present, The Hon. Andrea M. Leahy, Jared A. Mclain Esq.

University of Baltimore Law Review

No abstract provided.


The Excited Utterance Paradox, Steven Baicker-Mckee Oct 2017

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 ...


Hearsay And The Confrontation Clause (2017), Lynn Mclain May 2017

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 Mar 2017

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 Jan 2017

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 ...


Hearsay And The Confrontation Clause, Lynn Mclain Oct 2016

Hearsay And The Confrontation Clause, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

This speech was delivered to the Wicomico Co. Bar Association on October 28th, 2016. It is an updated version of the 2012 speech, available at http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac/924/ .

Overview: Only an out-of-court statement ("OCS") offered for the truth of the matter that was being asserted by the out-of-court declarant ("declarant") at the time when s/he made the OCS ("TOMA") = hearsay ("HS"). If evidence is not HS, the HS rule cannot exclude it. The Confrontation Clause also applies only to HS, but even then, only to its subcategory comprising "testimonial hearsay." Cross-references to "MD-EV" are to ...


Lost In Translation? The Difference Between Hearsay Rule's Historical Rationale And Practical Application, Christopher Lloyd Sewrattan Sep 2016

Lost In Translation? The Difference Between Hearsay Rule's Historical Rationale And Practical Application, Christopher Lloyd Sewrattan

LLM Theses

An examination of the difference between the hearsay rules historical rationale and current application. The analysis occurs in three steps. In section 1, the historical rationale of the hearsay rule is identified through a reconciliation of competing theories. Section 2 analyses the difference between the hearsay rules historical rationale and the application of the exclusionary hearsay rule. Section 3 analyses the difference between the hearsay rules historical rationale and the application of some categorical hearsay exceptions.

Overall, the thesis finds that the hearsay rules historical rationale has three aspects: concern with the inherent reliability of hearsay evidence, concern with procedural ...


Rescued From The Grave And Then Covered With Mud: Justice Scalia And The Unfinished Restoration Of The Confrontation Right, Richard D. Friedman Jun 2016

Rescued From The Grave And Then Covered With Mud: Justice Scalia And The Unfinished Restoration Of The Confrontation Right, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

Some years before his death, when asked which was his favorite among his opinions, Antonin Scalia named Crawford v. Washington. It was a good choice. Justice Scalia's opinion in Crawford reclaimed the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution and restored it to its rightful place as one of the central protections of our criminal justice system. He must have found it particularly satisfying that the opinion achieved this result by focusing on the historical meaning of the text, and that it gained the concurrence of all but two members of the Court, from all ideological positions.


Billy Joel: The Minstrel Testifies Or How The Rules Of Evidence Handcuff The Piano Man, Hon. Richard A. Dollinger Apr 2016

Billy Joel: The Minstrel Testifies Or How The Rules Of Evidence Handcuff The Piano Man, Hon. Richard A. Dollinger

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Face-To-Face With Facial Recognition Evidence: Admissibility Under The Post-Crawford Confrontation Clause, Joseph Clarke Celentino Jan 2016

Face-To-Face With Facial Recognition Evidence: Admissibility Under The Post-Crawford Confrontation Clause, Joseph Clarke Celentino

Michigan Law Review

In Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court announced a major change in Confrontation Clause doctrine, abandoning a decades-old framework that focused on the common law principles of hearsay analysis: necessity and reliability. The new doctrine, grounded in an originalist interpretation of the Sixth Amendment, requires courts to determine whether a particular statement is testimonial. But the Court has struggled to present a coherent definition of the term testimonial. In its subsequent decisions, the Court illustrated that its new Confrontation Clause doctrine could be used to bar forensic evidence, including laboratory test results, if the government failed to produce the technician ...


The Hearsay Rule At Work: Has It Been Abolished De Facto By Judicial Decision, Eleanor Swift Dec 2015

The Hearsay Rule At Work: Has It Been Abolished De Facto By Judicial Decision, Eleanor Swift

Eleanor Swift

No abstract provided.


The History Of Children's Hearsay: From Old Bailey To Post-Davis, Thomas D. Lyon, Raymond Lamagna Nov 2015

The History Of Children's Hearsay: From Old Bailey To Post-Davis, Thomas D. Lyon, Raymond Lamagna

Thomas D. Lyon

The papers in this symposium were originally prepared for the Section on Evidence of the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools.


The Changing Face Of The Rule Against Hearsay In English Law, R. A. Clark Jul 2015

The Changing Face Of The Rule Against Hearsay In English Law, R. A. Clark

Akron Law Review

The rule against hearsay has always been surrounded by an aura of mystery and has been treated with excessive reverence by many English judges. Traditionally the English courts have been reluctant to allow any development in the exceptions to this exclusionary rule, regarding hearsay evidence as being so dangerous that even where it appears to be of a high probative calibre it should be excluded at all costs. But recent developments, both statutory and common law, have demonstrated a much more relaxed approach to this rule. In civil cases the hearsay rule has been contained in statutory form for some ...


Lilly V. Virginia: Silencing The "Firmly Rooted" Hearsay Exception With Regard To An Accomplice's Testimony And Its Rejuvenation Of The Confrontation Clause, Leslie Morsek Jul 2015

Lilly V. Virginia: Silencing The "Firmly Rooted" Hearsay Exception With Regard To An Accomplice's Testimony And Its Rejuvenation Of The Confrontation Clause, Leslie Morsek

Akron Law Review

This Note examines the impact on the confrontation clause of introducing an accomplice's custodial statements which inculpate a defendant. Part II delves into the background of this issue by examining the confrontation clause's origin, the significance of hearsay with respect to the confrontation clause, and important cases in this area. Part III provides a statement of the facts, the procedural history, and the United States Supreme Court's decision in Lilly. Finally, Part IV analyzes the Lilly decision and its rejuvenation of the confrontation clause.


Back To The Future: Lorraine V. Markel American Insurance Co. And New Findings On The Admissibility Of Electronically Stored Information, Hon. Paul W. Grimm, Michael V. Ziccardi Esq., Alexander W. Major Esq. Jun 2015

Back To The Future: Lorraine V. Markel American Insurance Co. And New Findings On The Admissibility Of Electronically Stored Information, Hon. Paul W. Grimm, Michael V. Ziccardi Esq., Alexander W. Major Esq.

Akron Law Review

Imagine the following hypothetical, patterned on an actual case pending in federal court, and you can begin to appreciate why there is a growing awareness of the need to have clear analytical thinking regarding the admissibility of electronically stored information, variously referred to as “ESI,” “digital,” “electronic,” “computer generated,” or “computer stored” evidence in state and federal courts. ConsumerPro is a corporation that provides installment credit to consumers with poor or un-established credit records to enable them to purchase on credit expensive electronic and computer products like flat screen televisions, computers, and entertainment systems. Under their business plan, a purchaser ...


Recent Development: Hailes V. State: The State May Appeal A Trial Court's Ruling Excluding A Dying Declaration; The Length Of Time Between A Declarant's Statement And Death Is Irrelevant In A Dying Declaration Analysis; The Confrontation Clause Is Inapplicable To Dying Declarations, Lauren A. Panfile Jan 2015

Recent Development: Hailes V. State: The State May Appeal A Trial Court's Ruling Excluding A Dying Declaration; The Length Of Time Between A Declarant's Statement And Death Is Irrelevant In A Dying Declaration Analysis; The Confrontation Clause Is Inapplicable To Dying Declarations, Lauren A. Panfile

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the State may appeal a trial court’s suppression of a victim’s dying declaration based on the legislative intent of Section 12-302(c)(4)(i) of the Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Procedure Article (“section 12-302(c)(4)(i)”). Hailes v. State, 442 Md. 488, 497-98, 113 A.3d 608, 613-14 (2015). The court further held that a victim’s statement, made while on life support, was a dying declaration regardless of the fact that the victim died two years after making the statement. Id. at 506, 113 A.3d at ...


Rationalizing Hearsay: A Proposal For A Best Evidence Hearsay Rule, Michael Seigel Dec 2014

Rationalizing Hearsay: A Proposal For A Best Evidence Hearsay Rule, Michael Seigel

Michael L Seigel

The enterprise of this article is the theoretical construction of an optimal solution to the hearsay conundrum. Its first task is the elucidation of the premises upon which a rational hearsay rule can be built. Thus, the article starts by exploring the relationship between hearsay doctrine and the foundation of all rational truth-seeking enterprises, inductive logic. The article continues with an examination of the relationship between hearsay evidence and trial dynamics, for a workable rule must take into account the actual functioning of our adversary system.'" This two-pronged analysis leads to the proposal of a "best evidence hearsay rule."


The Case For Ehearsay, Jeffrey Bellin Dec 2014

The Case For Ehearsay, Jeffrey Bellin

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.


Memorandum: Hearsay Exception For Electronic Communications Of Recent Perception, Daniel J. Capra Dec 2014

Memorandum: Hearsay Exception For Electronic Communications Of Recent Perception, Daniel J. Capra

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.


Contents May Have Shifted: Disentangling The Best Evidence Rule From The Rule Against Hearsay, Colin Miller Dec 2014

Contents May Have Shifted: Disentangling The Best Evidence Rule From The Rule Against Hearsay, Colin Miller

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

The rule against hearsay covers a statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted but does not cover a statement offered for another purpose. Meanwhile, the Best Evidence Rule states that a party seeking to prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph must produce the original or account for its nonproduction. Does this mean that the Rule is inapplicable when a party seeks to prove something other than the truth of the matter asserted in a writing, recording or photograph? Most courts have answered this question in the affirmative. This essay argues these courts are wrong.


Jack Weinstein And The Missing Pieces Of The Hearsay Puzzle, Richard D. Friedman Dec 2014

Jack Weinstein And The Missing Pieces Of The Hearsay Puzzle, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

For the first three quarters of the twentieth century, the Wigmore treatise was the dominant force in organizing, setting out, and explaining the American law of evidence. Since then, the first two of those roles have been taken over in large part by the Federal Rules of Evidence (Rules). And the third has been performed most notably by the Weinstein treatise. Judge Jack Weinstein was present at the creation of the Rules and before. Though he first made his name in Civil Procedure, while still a young man he joined two of the stalwarts of evidence law, Edmund Morgan and ...


Supreme Court, New York County, People V. Vasquez, Jessica Goodwin Nov 2014

Supreme Court, New York County, People V. Vasquez, Jessica Goodwin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Supreme Court, Bronx County, People V. Paul, Adam D'Antonio Nov 2014

Supreme Court, Bronx County, People V. Paul, Adam D'Antonio

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Appellate Division, First Department, People V. Bradley, Kathleen Egan Nov 2014

Appellate Division, First Department, People V. Bradley, Kathleen Egan

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Conflicting Confrontation Clause Concerns: The Admissibility Of Hospital Records Versus A Defendant's Right To Confrontation, Susan Barlow Mar 2014

Conflicting Confrontation Clause Concerns: The Admissibility Of Hospital Records Versus A Defendant's Right To Confrontation, Susan Barlow

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Some Thoughts On The Fundamentals Of An Evidence Code From The U.S. American Perspective, Paul F. Rothstein Jan 2014

Some Thoughts On The Fundamentals Of An Evidence Code From The U.S. American Perspective, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In the U.S. American trial system proof mainly consists of live witnesses presented in open court under oath before the judge, jury, and parties, subject to perjury laws. Cross-examination of the witnesses in that setting is the principal (though not the only) form of testing their reliability. It is for these reasons that we have a rule against hearsay (second-hand reporting in court of what someone has said outside of court).


The Mold That Shapes Hearsay Law, Richard D. Friedman Jan 2014

The Mold That Shapes Hearsay Law, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

In response to an article previously published in the Florida Law Review by Professor Ben Trachtenberg, I argue that the historical thesis of Crawford v. Washington is basically correct: The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment reflects a principle about how witnesses should give testimony, and it does not create any broader constraint on the use of hearsay. I argue that this is an appropriate limit on the Clause, and that in fact for the most part there is no good reason to exclude nontestimonial hearsay if live testimony by the declarant to the same proposition would be admissible. I ...