Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

A statement is not hearsay if 1 prior statement by

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: lifies as an "other proceeding" within the meaning of the statute (reasons above)" Notes: In Castro-Ayon, the question is whether once they've recanted and testified basically the opposite at the trial, 801(d) (1)(a) can the inconsistent statements be substantive evidence, which mainly means if there is no other evidence on that element, does the case go to the jury? If you have to have, in order to make a sufficient case to go to the jury, the input evidence from these witnesses, then unless these inconsistent statements come in under (a) he walks...directed verdict against the government (that's what is at stake) Common law said that a prior inconsistent statement...unless it happened to fit a hearsay exception, was not substantive evidence (was only admissible for impeachment). That doctrine of the common law was widely criticized for many years.... Since the defendant here has the person under oath now, even if they weren't under oath before, now there's crossexamination, now there's oath....the fact that it was hearsay once so what? Procedural protections are being given to the party now...the...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online