This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: A statement is admissible under a hearsay exception UNLESS the statement is testimonial (primary purpose of the statement is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution requires confrontation). = CONFRONTATION CLAUSE ISSUE (A statement is testimonial when the primary purpose of the statement is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution!) Go to commercial outline! Thomas' dissent court's approach is unworkable: Thinks we should construe the concept of testimony of witness narrowly. Points out that basically all of the old cases that Scalia uses to interpret the meaning of testimonial involve very FORMAL statements statements that have a much higher degree of formality than what's held testimonial here. Believes the statements should be sworn, Mirandized etc. Doesn't think the statements in either Davis OR Hammon violated the confrontation clause. Chapter Three: Procedures for Admitting and Excluding Evidence
Procedures for Admitting and Excluding Evidence Article I
Commercial Outline Notes: Objections and Motions to Strike [FRE 103(a)(1)]
FRE 103(a)(1): Rulings on Evidence. Effect of Erroneous Ruling. Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and Objection. In case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a...
View Full Document