Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Purpose 804b6 prophylactic rule to deal with abhorrent

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: lawyer interviewed his father, and the lawyer informed him that the conversation was not privileged. The father told her that the whole scheme was his and that his son had nothing to do with it. Father refused to testify about this and then he became a fugitive (unavailable under 804(a). District court ruled that the portions of the evidence in which the father admitted his own criminal responsibility, but not those exonerating the son, could come into evidence. Appellants argue that the statement should not have been parsed, and that the testimony exonerating the son should have been admitted. Issue: Did the trial court err in determining that the father statement should be parsed and that only the self-inculpatory portions should be admitted? Holding: The unavailable witness exception for statements against penal interest, FRE 804(b)(3) applied, so that the parts of Paguio Sr.'s statements exonerating his son should have been admitted. KEY: "Williamson does not mean that the trial judge must always parse the statement and let in only the inculpatory part. It means that the statement mu...
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