Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Then at the end you may move for mistrial because it

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: 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

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 at Austin.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online