1 / 22

CHAP. 4, part 1 of 3: DEFINITIONAL EXCEPTIONS TO THE MEANING OF HEARSAY

CHAP. 4, part 1 of 3: DEFINITIONAL EXCEPTIONS TO THE MEANING OF HEARSAY. P. JANICKE 2012. IF OUT-OF-COURT DECLARANT IS WITNESS AT TRIAL. A FEW DEFINITIONAL EXCEPTIONS TO “HEARSAY” APPLY [R 801(d)(1)] PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT. (1) PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT. ALWAYS ALLOWED TO IMPEACH

tambre
Download Presentation

CHAP. 4, part 1 of 3: DEFINITIONAL EXCEPTIONS TO THE MEANING OF HEARSAY

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CHAP. 4, part 1 of 3:DEFINITIONAL EXCEPTIONS TO THE MEANING OF HEARSAY P. JANICKE 2012

  2. IF OUT-OF-COURT DECLARANT IS WITNESS AT TRIAL • A FEW DEFINITIONAL EXCEPTIONS TO “HEARSAY” APPLY [R 801(d)(1)] • PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT Chap. 4, part 1

  3. (1) PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT • ALWAYS ALLOWED TO IMPEACH • NOW PROPONENT IS TRYING TO GET IT IN FOR ITS TRUTH AS WELL • HAS TO HAVE BEEN UNDER OATH • HAS TO HAVE BEEN IN A FORMAL PROCEEDING [HENCE A LIMITED RULE] Chap. 4, part 1

  4. RECALL: • BY OUT-OF-COURT WE MEAN OUTSIDE THE PRESENT HEARING [R801(c)] • TESTIMONY AT FIRST TRIAL IN SAME CASE IS “OUT-OF-COURT” • TESTIMONY IN ANOTHER CASE IS “OUT-OF-COURT” • DEPOSITIONS: • TEXAS STATE PRACTICE: TREATED AS PART OF TRIAL • FED. PRACTICE: REGARDED AS DIFFERENT HEARING Chap. 4, part 1

  5. TEXAS RULE ON PRIOR INCONSISTENT STMTS. • TEXAS RULE 801(e)(1)(A) SAYS YOU CAN’T USE A 3d PERSON’S PRIOR GRAND JURY TESTIMONY IN THIS WAY • CAN OF COURSE USE IT TO IMPEACH • IMPACT OF THE TEXAS RULE: CAN’T CONVICT BASED ON A 3d PERSON’S RECANTED GRAND JURY TESTIMONY Chap. 4, part 1

  6. (2) PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS • NOW BEING OFFERED FOR THEIR TRUTH • THE RULE, 801(d)(1)(B), MATCHES THE RULE FOR REHABILITATING A WITNESS’S CREDIBILITY: • MUST FIRST BE ATTACKED • CAN USE STMT. MADE PRIOR TO ONSET OF ALLEGED MOTIVE TO FALSIFY Chap. 4, part 1

  7. (3) STATEMENT OF IDENTIFICATION OF A PERSON • NEED NOT HAVE BEEN UNDER OATH OR IN A PROCEEDING • EXAMPLES: • TESTIMONY BY POLICEMAN THAT W PICKED D OUT OF A LINEUP • TESTIMONY BY A BYSTANDER THAT W SELECTED D’S PHOTO FROM A COLLECTION • TESTIMONY BY W THAT W PICKED D OUT OF LINEUP OR PHOTO SET Chap. 4, part 1

  8. NOT SO OBVIOUS EXAMPLE: • “THE MAN WAS DRIVING” • BORDERLINE CASES: • “SHE ID’D THE ONE WITH THE BROWN HAIR” • “I TOLD THEM HE HAD BROWN HAIR” [THERE COMES A POINT WHERE THE STMT. NO LONGER IDENTIFIES] Chap. 4, part 1

  9. RECALL: WIT. CAN ALWAYS SAY WHAT SHE SAW • HERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TESTIMONY THAT SHE SAID, OUT OF COURT, THAT SHE SAW . . . . Chap. 4, part 1

  10. A CLOSER LOOK AT “ADMISSIONS” [R 801(d)(2)] • RECALL: WE DON’T ANALYZE WHICH WAY THE STATEMENT CUTS • IF IT’S A PARTY’S STATEMENT, AND OFFERED BY THE OPPOSING LAWYER, IT QUALIFIES Chap. 4, part 1

  11. WHO THE WITNESS ON THE STAND IS DOESN’T MATTER • EXAMPLE: OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENT BY CIVIL DEFENDANT • PLAINTIFF’S LAWYER CAN INTRODUCE IT BY: • ASKING PLAINTIFF ABOUT IT • ASKING DEFENDANT ABOUT IT • ASKING A BYSTANDER ABOUT IT Chap. 4, part 1

  12. STATEMENT ADOPTED BY A PARTY [R 801(d)(2)(B)] • OFTEN VAGUE IN ITS OPERATION • COULD BE BY EXPLICITLY SAYING “THAT’S OUR VIEW” • COULD BE BY SILENCE WHEN AN OUTSIDER SAYS THAT’S OUR VIEW • COULD BE BY MERELY FILING AWAY THE STATEMENT ?? Chap. 4, part 1

  13. VICARIOUS ADMISSIONS(INCLUDING ADMISSIONS OF ORGANIZATIONS) • KEEP IN MIND WHO THE PARTIES ARE: • CRIMINAL CASE: STATE (OR U.S.); AND D • CIVIL CASE: PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT • ONLY A PARTY’S OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS QUALIFY UNDER THE DEFINITIONAL EXCEPTION Chap. 4, part 1

  14. THE PARTY NEED NOT HAVE SAID IT DIRECTLY • COULD BE BY AN EMPLOYEE • COULD BE BY A CURRENT ACCOMPLICE • ETC. Chap. 4, part 1

  15. OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENT BY AGENT OR SERVANT [R801(d)(2)(D)] • AGENT: ONE EMPOWERED TO BIND ANOTHER (THE PRINCIPAL) IN CONTRACT • SERVANT: AN EMPLOYEE • BY FAR THE MOST PROLIFIC SOURCE OF CORPORATE ADMISSIONS • ESP. INTERNAL DOCUMENTS Chap. 4, part 1

  16. AGENT AND SERVANT ADMISSIONS SHOULD BIND GOVERNMENTS AS WELL AS CORPORATIONS • BUT COURTS ARE RELUCTANT IN SOME GOVERNMENT CASES • THEY LIMIT “SERVANTS” TO LOCAL POLICE, ETC. Chap. 4, part 1

  17. THE PARTY NEED NOT HAVE AUTHORIZED THE DECLARANT TO SPEAK FOR HER • STATEMENTS MADE BY EMPLOYEES ARE ADMISSIONS OF THE EMPLOYER IF THEY ARE JOB-RELATED • THEY DO NOT HAVE TO BE AUTHORIZED Chap. 4, part 1

  18. IN A MULTIPLE-DEFENDANT OR MULTIPLE PLAINTIFF CASE: • THE STATEMENT OF AN EMPLOYEE IS AN ADMISSION OF THE EMPLOYEE [801(d)(2)(A)] • IT IS ALSO AN ADMISSION OF THE EMPLOYER [801(d)(2)(D)] • SAME FOR CO-CONSPIRATORS, AGENTS, ETC. Chap. 4, part 1

  19. PROBLEMS/CASES • STATE v. SMITH • 4A • MOTTA • 4B • 4D • Hoosier (cont’d) Chap. 4, part 1

  20. Doyle • 4F • Mahlandt • 4H Chap. 4, part 1

  21. OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENT CAN BE BY AN AUTHORIZED PERSON [R801(d)(2)(C)] • INCLUDES, FOR EXAMPLE: • PARTY’S LAWYER -- E.G., IN A PLEADING OR MOTION PAPER • PRESS SPOKESPERSON Chap. 4, part 1

  22. OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENT OF A PARTY’S CO-CONSPIRATOR [R801(d)(2)(D)] • TWO MAJOR CONSTRAINTS -- • STMT. WAS MADE DURING THE CONSPIRACY, i.e., NOT AFTER ARREST • STMT. WAS MADE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY Chap. 4, part 1

More Related