Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Issue did the trial court err in determining that the

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: ctor diagnoses patient with "soft brain". The charge is $2. Has a report about what happened to the brain, whole narrative on that subject and stated that the patient paid the $2. Patient's payment was against doctor's pecuniary interest. Court held the WHOLE statement admissible, just because that one statement was against the doctor's pecuniary interest. This reasoning is consistent with Hillmon (with respect to collateral or contextual statements) o But despite common law, O'Connor adopts a different view: Only statements against interest are admissible. Makes sense, the theory in favor of admitting statement against interest is: Why would you say something that would harm you unless it were true...hard to see how the reliability of this would bleed over into other things you say. o Advisory committee seems to endorse the McCormick view....Kennedy is right about this...McCormick view: down the middle If it's collateral self-serving it should not be admitted If it's collateral neutral it should be admitted. Note: We are still not clear as to what a sin...
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