Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

He also expressed concern about his familys welfare

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: st be examined in context, to see whether as a matter of common sense the portion at issue was against interest and would not have been made by a reasonable person unless he believed it to be true. Sometimes this requires exclusion of part of the statement, sometimes not. A reasonable man caught with a trunk full of cocaine, like the unavailable declarant in Williamson, might well imagine that he could advance his own penal interest by fingering someone else. But Paguio Sr.'s statement that "my son had nothing to do with it" was not an attempt to "shift blame or curry favor." Notes: Have returned to this semi-black letter law, if it looks at all self-serving it is out. But if the statement doesn't look like that (doesn't stink of shift-blame-curry-favor) than the admissibility of collateral statements is pretty liberal...like the McCormick approach. Need to look at the circumstances under which the collateral statement was made to see if it seems reliable. Daddy clearly the guy running the transaction. When the daddy says: It was all me, my son had nothing to do with it, on its face it is damaging eviden...
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