Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

And his wife acosta were convicted of false

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: tement in a co-perpetrator's confession that incriminates the accused is admissible under the provision only if the particular statement is sufficiently against the declarant's interest to be reliable. Since the court holds that the statements did not qualify under Rule 804(b)(3) it does not have to reach the confrontation issue. 11 years later, Supreme Court issued the very important confrontation clause decision that any statement like this is flatly barred by confrontation (because the other party needs the opportunity to cross-examine). When made to an ally, however, confrontation clause doesn't apply. O'Connor = majority opinion o After Crawford only applies to statements made to outsiders (not the heat) Now, under Crawford, any statements like these (shift the blame-curry statements) made to the heat, are barred. o Law BEFORE the federal rules: Wigmore says if you have a statement, part of which qualifies as a statement against interest, the whole narrative on that subject is admissible, even parts which are not against the declarant's interest! Do...
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