PowerPoint Slides (3rd Set)

PowerPoint Slides (3rd Set) - FRE 802: Hearsay is not...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–11. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
FRE 802: Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules. .. Exemptions: Out-of-court statements offered for their truth, but legislatively “defined” as “not hearsay” Declarant testifying: 801(d)(1) Party statements (admissions): 801(d)(2) Exceptions: Unrestricted: 803 Declarant unavailable: 804 Residual (catch-all): 807 3 5 23 5 1 37 Out-of-court statements offered for their truth, but admissible as reliable or important
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
TRIAL STATION HOUSE D smuggled us in. D did not smuggle us in. W now testifying? W now subject to cross Inconsistent? PIS under oath? PIS in a proceeding? Not a proceeding (but was admitted substantively)
Background image of page 2
TRIAL TO INS. INVESTIGATOR I stole it. I didn’t steal it. Letendre v. Hartford , 289 N.Y.2d 183 (N.Y. 1968). P sued insurance company to recover on policy covering employee theft. Only evidence of theft was employee’s PIS. He told me he stole it. Admitted substantively
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Prior Inconsistent Statements New York Rule Criminal cases Admissible to impeach Never admissible substantively - CPL 60.35(2) Civil Cases Admissible to impeach Admissible substantively, at least where indicia of reliability exist - See Hartford v. Letendre (declarant testified under oath subject to cross-
Background image of page 4
TRIAL TO POLICE AT SCENE D was not speeding. D was speeding. Isn’t it true you began dating D 2 weeks ago? TO INVESTIGATOR 4 WEEKS BEFORE TRIAL D was speeding.
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Prior Consistent Statements Admissible only where: Declarant testifies and is subject to cross- examination To rebut charge of recent fabrication or improper motive N.B. - Not necessary for prior inconsistent statement to be introduced first In federal court, admissible substantively under FRE 801(d)(1)(b) In New York, admissible only for the non-
Background image of page 6
Prior Identifications Federal: Declarant must testify and be subject to cross- examination New York: Declarant must have previously made I.D. but be unable to at trial because of failure of recollection; OR Declarant must make I.D. at trial, in which case declarant may also testify to earlier I.D. Prior identification must have been in person --
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Hearsay Exemptions: Party Statements 801(d)(2): “The statement is offered against a party and is 1. Individual (A) the party’s own statement in either an individual or a representative capacity,
Background image of page 8
P D v. Denise: P said, “My daughter is reckless. Is it hearsay? To prove daughter is reckless, yes. To prove P’s knowledge of risk, maybe. Is it admissible? Yes. Under FRE 801(d)(2)(A), statement of a party offered against that party is exempted from definition of hearsay.
Background image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Al Ben v. Walter:
Background image of page 10
Image of page 11
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 39

PowerPoint Slides (3rd Set) - FRE 802: Hearsay is not...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 11. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online