Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Offered to introduce into evidence letters to 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: vernment searching defendant's premises for evidence of bookmaking activity. While searching, government agents answered the telephone several times. The unknown callers stated directions for the placing of bets on various sporting events. Procedural Posture: Issue: Government proposes to introduce the evidence of the phone calls to show that the callers believed that the premises were used in betting operations. Defendants object on the ground of hearsay. Were the statements of the callers inadmissible hearsay? Holding: The statements of the callers were not hearsay. "The utterances of the betters telephoning in their bets were nonassertive verbal conduct, offered as relevant for an implied assertion to be inferred from them, namely that bets could be placed at the premises being telephoned. The language is not an assertion in its face, and its obvious these persons did not intend to make an assertion about the fact sought to be proved [that D was running a gambling business] or anything else." Notes: COMMON LAW: Wright v. Tatum = granddaddy case Question: Did he...
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