Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Schaffer was a drug dealer hanson v johnson verbal

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: -asserter....The Commonwealth should not be permitted to evade this principle by having the detective testify obliquely rather than flat out." "The facts that the detective had taken "a statement" from Moore, and had then "as a result of" that statement arrested appellant, were of no possible relevance except to show that Moore had told the detective that appellant was involved in the robbery. Notes: Federal Rule 801: c) Hearsay "Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Farris did not have the chance to cross examine Moore not fair. Indirect hearsay problem here! Note: Shafer case Texas Basically the same thing as the Farris case Without telling us what he told you, Officer Segovia, would you, at this time, ask the state to drop charges against Mr. Schaffer?? "No sir" This is indirect hearsay... out-of-court statements of Seals offe...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online