Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

but this gets appealed sometimethe judge

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: nconsistent statement is hearsay and nontestimonial, people would try to sneak it in by calling these witnesses in even though they knew they were going to be a turncoat. in order to reduce this dangerous abuse, the common law said you cannot introduce prior inconsistent statements by a witness that you call that are not otherwise substantively admissible unless you meet two requirements: o Surprise Makes sense...don't know he is going to change his story..... o Damage But if he says something neutral, even if you are surprised you are barred from bringing in the prior inconsistent statements. No damage = no prior inconsistent statement. 801(d)(1)(A) was amended and thereby the surprise and damage requirements was no longer included...Graham's view was therefore Congress should have amended 607 to reimpose surprise and damage in order to get in prior inconsistent statements of your own witness. Wellborn says he's right, but the courts have not done this as such....have not adopted Graham's position that you have to have surprise and damage....but as a pract...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course N 483 taught by Professor Wellborn during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online