Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

O congress intended the term other proceeding to

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: peals conviction for inducing illegal immigration, transporting illegal immigrants, and conspiracy. Border patrol agent stopped a van carrying eleven illegal aliens. Aliens were taken to patrol station where Agent Pierce advised them of their "Miranda" rights, placed them under oath and interrogated them. Interrogation was tape recorded. All the witnesses during the interrogation made statements to inculpate Castro-Ayon. At trial, three of the aliens were called by the gov. and asked questions about Castro-Ayon. They all exculpated him. Prosecutor called Agent Pearce to testify to the substance of the prior statements all of which were inconsistent with the testimony that the witnesses had given in court. Castro-Ayon objected to the admission of the evidence. Trial court instructed the jury to weigh the prior inconsistent statements of the witnesses not only in testing the credibility of the witnesses, but also in considering the defendant's guilt. Issue: Were the prior inconsistent statements admissible for the purpose of considering the defendant's guilt? o Were the statements made in an appropriate proceeding so as to qualify under 801(d)(1)(A)? Holding: Statements were properl...
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