Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Texas does not allow this rule 606b restricts 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: prosecutor learned of the hypnosis session, he filed a motion to exclude petitioner's testimony. Trial judge held a pretrial hearing on the motion and concluded that no hypnotically refreshed testimony will be admitted. o Court issued an order limiting petitioner's testimony to "matters remembered and stated to the examiner prior to be being placed under hypnosis" Supreme Court of Arkansas rejected petitioner's claim that the limitations on her testimony violated her right to present her defense. Supreme Court of US granted certiorari to consider the constitutionality of Arkansas' per se rule excluding a criminal defendant's hypnotically refreshed testimony. Issue: Is Arkansas' per se rule excluding a criminal defendant's hypnotically refreshed testimony unconstitutional? Holding: Having a per se exclusion rule here, only when applied to the accused as a witness, violates her right to constitutionally present her defense. o Wellborn says first of all where the hell did this right come from??? o Second of all yes even if you have the right to present your defense, this doesn't mean you can present all sorts of evidence (i.e. hearsay et...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online