This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: ate. Jambura was there only to gather evidence for the prosecution and that's why they didn't use 803(4) and had to rely on the residual exception. Dissent: Against our law/commonsense that you can't consider corroboration seems like a pretty strong case only because O'Connor does such a terrible job of making her own case. o What O'Connor should have said: If corroboration of outside evidence was allowed, it would be too easy to get in witnesses that the defendant would not be able to confront (i.e. obviously this witnesses testimony is going to be corroborated by our other evidence because it's all going to prove the same thing!) This holding is necessary in order to prevent evil circumvention of this fundamental right. Hearsay and Confrontation
Supreme Court case law on hearsay and the constitutional right of confrontation distinguishes among four categories of hearsay statements: Prior statements by witnesses who testify in the present proceeding under oath and are subject to cross-examination concerning the prior statement Substantive admission of these statements does not offend the co...
View Full Document