Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Makes sense the theory in favor of admitting

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: distribution of cocaine. When called to testify at Wililamson's trial, Harris refused. District Court, upon Harris' refusal to testify, ruled that under 804(b)(3), Agent Walton could relate everything that Harris said to him with respect to the operation. Williamson appeals conviction, claiming that the admission of Harris' statements violated Rule 804(b)(3) and the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Issue: Should all of Harris' statements have been let in, or only those particular statements that are in accordance with the Rule 804(b)(3) requirement that the statements be against interest? Holding: Harris' entire declaration should not have been let in, only those statements that satisfy the self-inculpatory Rule 804(b)(3) balancing test should have been admitted. Notes: "Collateral statements": In Williamson v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the Rule 804(b)(3) "does not allow admission of non-self-inculpatory statements, even if they are made within a broader narrative that is generally selfinculpatory.' Therefore, a sta...
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