Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Federal rules identical to common law dont want to

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: achment of the alleged motive to fabricate. o If the statements are not made prior to the motive to fabricate, then they do not effectively rebut the alleged motive as is required by Rule 801(d)(1)(B), rather they go to bolster the veracity of the story told a purpose that is blatantly inadmissible. Notes: The issue with allowing consistent statements is fundamentally different than inconsistent statements....it is not really a hearsay problem (could get the witness, on the stand, to repeat statements she had said before...eliminates hearsay problem): Question with inconsistent statements are you going to allow this type of hearsay on the account of facts to prove the fact of the matter asserted? Problem with consistent statements isn't necessarily a hearsay problem but more of a relevancy problem. Are you going to allow this cumulative evidence when you have the witness on the stand already testifying to it??? Wellborn agrees with Breyer's rationale on Tome v. United States with respect to relevancy: If the witness comes out and...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online