Case Brief United states v.s. lawson

Case Brief United states v.s. lawson - Holding: No, The...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Belen Cardenas Andrew Wault Case Brief 10 April 13, 2009 United States V.S. Lawson 63 F.2d 299 (1981) Facts: Defendant made anonymous calls to a security officer claiming to have information on damage that was going to occur on the International Harvester plants. He bribed the officer stating that he had all the information in exchange for 50, 000 dollars. When the officers and Lawson met there was a scuffle, and the defendant fired at the police officers, but missed. The defendant claimed to be mentally ill and was examined by a psychiatrist. At trial the doctor’s opinions were based on other witness’ reports and information from other doctors. The defendant was convicted, but then appealed due to his violation of his right to confront adverse witnesses. Issue: Whether or not the doctor’s evidence based on information and reports of other witnesses violated the defendant’s right to confront adverse witnesses.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Holding: No, The doctors witnesses did not violate the defendants rights to confront adverse witnesses. Rationale: There can be expert testimony based largely on hearsay may be permissible only if there is adequate opportunity to fully cross-examine the witness. Lawson had this opportunity. Rule 703 permits experts to base their testimony on evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible, so long as it is of a type reasonable relied on by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject. In this case he received information on experts on the subject, which would actually be used to make a professional judgment. In addition to rule 705 the defendant must have access to the information in order for the cross-examination to be effective. The defendant had access to the information that Dr. Sheldon used to reach his opinion. Result: Affirmed...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online