Evidence Commons^™

Evidence, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

This article addresses some of the more significant evidence cases decided by the Fifth Circuit during the survey period.' Before turning to the cases themselves, it is important to note at the outset that like other federal courts, the Fifth Circuit is generally not inclined to reverse a case on an evidentiary error. It should not be surprising then that in most of the cases which follow, the court implicitly deferred to the decision of the trial judge in deciding whether a certain piece of evidence was admissible.

Improving The Procedure For Resolving Hearsay Issues, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

In this article, I propose two changes in the way hearsay issues are usually resolved. First, in some circumstances courts should divide the burdens of producing the declarant-for example, by imposing the physical burden on the proponent and the financial burden on the opponent. Second, no matter how the declarant is produced as a witness, she should ordinarily testify as part of the proponent's case, subject to cross-examination by the opponent. If the declarant does become a witness, the admissibility of her out-of-court statement should not be resolved until her current testimony about the underlying events is received.

Hearsay: Part Ii, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Hearsay: Part Iv, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Hearsay: Part I, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Hearsay: Part Iii, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Evidence, Fifth Circuit Symposium, David A. Schlueter

Faculty Articles

This article reviews decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on evidence issues and concludes that if an attorney has any hopes of obtaining appellate relief on an evidentiary issue, it is essential that the issues be presented concisely and completely to the trial court. The appellate courts will not reverse an evidentiary ruling of a trial court, even if the trial court has erred. This deference to the trial court is in recognition of the hundreds of rulings on evidence that the trial court must conduct within the course of a trial. In order …

Supreme Court, Plain Meaning, And The Changed Rules Of Evidence, Randolph N. Jonakait

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Balancing The Right To Confrontation And The Need To Protect Child Sexual Abuse Victims: Are Statutes Authorizing Televised Testimony Serving Their Purpose?, Kimberley Seals Bressler

Seattle University Law Review

This Comment begins by providing a brief outline of the procedures regulating the use of televised testimony. Next, against the larger backdrop of the history of the right to confrontation, Part III addresses the treatment of televised testimony as hearsay. This section presents a recent Maryland decision as an illustration of the undesirable analogy of televised testimony to hearsay that leads to a more difficult admission standard. Part III concludes with the argument that televised testimony is the functional equivalent of in-court testimony, and thus, a hearsay analysis is inappropriate. Part IV of this Comment presents a recent Supreme Court …

Twist And Shout And Truth Will Out: An Argument For The Adoption Of A "Safety-Valve" Exception To The Washington Hearsay Rule, George R. Nock

Seattle University Law Review

This Article will focus on two decisions of the Washington Supreme Court illustrating the unfortunate expansion of certain hearsay exceptions in order to accommodate truth, show that the expansion could have been avoided had Washington adopted a "general" exception comparable to that found in the Federal Rules of Evidence, and propose the adoption of an exception shorn of the defects of the rejected federal version.

Res Gestae, The Present Sense Impression Exception And Extrinsic Corroboration Under Federal Rules Of Evidence 803(1) And Its State Counterparts, William Gorman Passannante

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This Note presents an overview of the hearsay rule and its general historical development, as well as background on the history of the res gestae doctrine to provide a clearer understanding of the Federal Rules discussed. It examines the current analysis of the three Rule 803 hearsay exceptions, and compares the requirements of external corroboration of hearsay statements under each of Rules 803(1), (2) and (3) to illustrate some inconsistencies in the application of these rules. The author concludes that it is essential that a concise and historically consistent method of applying the present sense impression exception be used, and …

Should Tennessee Bury The Dead Man Statute As Arkansas Has, W. Dent Gitchel

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Prior Inconsistent Statements, H. Patrick Furman

Publications

No abstract provided.

A Subject Matter Approach To Hearsay Reform, Roger Park

Michigan Law Review

None of the three major reform proposals - the Model Code, the Uniform Rules, or the original Federal Rules - incorporated a systematic distinction between civil and criminal cases. The thesis of this article is that this distinction should be adopted. This article will explore the reasons for excluding hearsay, and conclude that they support different sets of rules in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, rules excluding hearsay should be curtailed. Hearsay that fits under an established exception should be admitted, and other hearsay, without discretionary screening by the trial judge, should be admitted on proper notice. In …

Unavailability And Admissibility: Are A Child's Out-Of-Court Statements About Sexual Abuse Admissible If The Child Does Not Testify At Trial?, Joellen S. Mccomb

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Ambiguity: The Hidden Hearsay Danger Almost Nobody Talks About, Paul Bergman

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Implied Hearsay: Defusing The Battle Line Between Pragmatism And Theory, Ronald J. Bacigal

Law Faculty Publications

A return to the emotionally neutral fundamentals of the hearsay rule presents the clash between pragmatists and academicians in a setting which is free of the value laden considerations surrounding child abuse cases. This clash arises at the most fundamental level, that of defining hearsay. Many academicians favor a definition of hearsay as evidence whose reliability depends upon the veracity of someone not subject to cross-examination. Pragmatists (particularly trial lawyers) often find this formulation awkward and prefer a concise definition of hearsay as an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the contents. The choice of definitions can make a …

Evidence - North Carolina Allows Admission Of The Unthinkable: Hearsay Exceptions And Statements Made By Sexually Abused Children - State V. Smith, Benita A. Lloyd

Campbell Law Review

This Note will discuss how the court's decision to expand the traditional hearsay exceptions under Rule 803 ranks in effectiveness with other methods which allow into evidence hearsay statements of a child victim. While Smith does not provide admission of all critical hearsay statements made by sexually abused children, the decision goes a long way in allowing North Carolina courts to admit the unthinkable.

Compulsory Process, Right To, Peter K. Westen

Book Chapters

The first state to adopt a constitution following the Declaration of Independence (New Jersey, 1776) guaranteed all criminal defendants the same ‘‘privileges of witnesses’’ as their prosecutors. Fifteen years later, in enumerating the constitutional rights of accused persons, the framers of the federal Bill of Rights bifurcated what New Jersey called the ‘‘privileges of witnesses’’ into two distinct but related rights: the Sixth Amendment right of the accused ‘‘to be confronted with the witnesses against him,’’ and his companion Sixth Amendment right to ‘‘compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.’’ The distinction between witnesses ‘‘against’’ the accused and witnesses …

Implied Hearsay, Ronald J. Bacigal

Law Faculty Publications

Lawyers sometimes exaggerate the significance of a single sentence or footnote in a court opinion. At other times a single phrase may turn out to be a time bomb which subsequently explodes with far reaching result:i. Court watchers thus spend considerable time trying to discern what is implied within the literal language of a court's opinion. It is no small irony that one of the latest implications in a Virginia Supreme Court decision relates to the implications contained within an out-of-court statement that cannot be literally defined as hearsay. A modification of the hearsay rule, or at least the hearsay …

The Subversion Of The Hearsay Rule: The Residual Hearsay Exceptions, Circumstantial Guarantees Of Trustworthiness, And Grand Jury Testimony, Randolph N. Jonakait

Articles & Chapters

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, hearsay is generally prohibited, being admitted only when it falls within a limited class of specific hearsay exceptions. Two general hearsay exceptions were, however, engrafted onto the list of specific ones to allow the courts to confront new and unforseen hearsay problem Lower courts have interpreted these "residual" or "catchall" exceptions differently.

This Article analyzes judicial interpretations of the residual exceptions in cases considering the admissibility of grandjury testimony. The author initially discusses the traditional hearsay approach and reviews the legislative history of the residual exceptions. He then analyzes Fourth Circuit cases considering the …

Dead Men Tell Tales: Thirty Times Three Years Of The Judicial Process After Hillmon, Douglas D. Mcfarland

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Testing The Reliability Of Coconspirators' Statements Admitted Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 801(D)(2)(E): Putting The Claws Back In The Confrontation Clause, Daniel R. Rizzolo

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Kentucky Law Survey: Evidence, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Kentucky courts faced a number of significant issues in evidence law during the Survey period. Several decisions dealt with character evidence and problems arising from the admission of evidence of prior criminal acts of the accused, either as substantive evidence or for impeachment. This Survey will highlight these cases and to a lesser degree discuss cases on hearsay admissions, opinion, the Kentucky Dead Man Statute and privilege, which also were decided during the Survey period.

The Silent Revolution, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Admission Of An Unavailable Witness’ Grand Jury Testimony: Can It Be Justified?, Judd Burstein

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Constraints On The Admissibility Of Grand Jury Testimony: The Unavailable Witness, Confrontation, And Due Process, Barbara L. Strack

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Defendants, however, have raised serious constitutional objections to the introduction of grand jury testimony when the witness is unavailable to testify at trial. These claims have focused on the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment and the due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments. Defendants have contended that the introduction of testimony from a grand jury proceeding which cannot be subjected to cross-examination fatally compromises the defendant's right to a fair trial. Lower courts are split over admitting grand jury testimony in these circumstances, and the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the issue. As a result, …

Inculpatory Declarations Against Penal Interest And The Coconspirator Rule Under The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Diane M. Frye

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Future Of Confrontation, Peter K. Westen

Michigan Law Review

The Supreme Court seems to be setting the stage for a long-awaited examination of the confrontation clause. It has been ten years since the Court endeavored in Dutton v. Evans to reconcile the evidentiary rules of hearsay with the constitutional commands of confrontation. Dutton came at the tail end of a string of confrontation cases that the Court had resolved without apparent difficulty. Not surprisingly, the Court approached Dutton in the evident belief that it could resolve the constitutional problems of hearsay once and for all. Instead, after oral argument in 1969 and a rehearing in 1970, the Court found …

Impeachment Of One's Own Witness By Prior Inconsistent Statements Under The Federal And Arkansas Rules Of Evidence, Samuel A. Perroni

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.