Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

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: rder and conspiracy. Procedural Posture: Jury found defendants guilty on both counts of the indictment. On appeal, the court upheld the judgments of conspiracy, but set aside the convictions of murder, finding that a confession given by Ayers had been obtained in violation of her Miranda rights o Murder weapon had been discovered as a result of that illegally obtained confession. Now dealing with Barbara Ayers' second trial (defendants are being tried separately this time) State calls Donald Ayers as a witness who refuses to testify. Barbara claims that if she could have cross-examined Donald at the second trial she would have done it completely differently than at the first trial, therefore the testimony from the first trial is not applicable here and bringing in this evidence is in violation of the confrontation clause. o At the first trial, with my confession in evidence it was hard for me to do anything but give justification, now I don't get to cross-examine him under the new strategy that I didn't do it! Key! Issue: Should Donald Ayers' previous testimony be admitted even though at that point in time Barbara Ayers' strategy in cross-examination was significantly different than the strategy she intended to employ in the second trial (b...
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 at Austin.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online