If w makes statement before but now forgets can still

Info icon This preview shows pages 27–29. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
If W makes statement before but now forgets, can still successfully cross-x story  b/c can impugn his belief.  Show it is unreliable b/c he does not even remember  why he made statement.  Don't care about effectiveness of cross-x, only that you  had opportunity. iv. Jury can observe demeanor evidence.  Doesn't matter if could not observe  demeanor before b/c can ask why story changed and observe demeanor now. 3. HEARSAY AND THE CONSTITUTION - Prior statements that are not now  subject to  cross-x (may or may not have been subject to cross-x before) are OK IF statements have  "indicia of reliability."  Ohio v. Roberts  (p.433) a. Competing interests between allowing prior statements without confrontation if they  are reliable (effective law enforcement) and giving person right to confrontation. b. Balance hearsay and 6th amendment.  Confrontation clause excludes some hearsay  but not all. c. Two-part test to satisfy Confrontation Clause:  Ohio v. Roberts  (p.433) i. Prosecution must produce or demonstrate unavailability of declarant. (although  not always required if utility of confrontation is remote).  PROBABLY ONLY  NEEDED "FOR FORMER TESTIMONY" HEARSAY EXCEPTION (P.439,  n.4). 27
Image of page 27

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
ii. If W unavailable, hearsay allowed if it is trustworthy, i.e. showing "indicia of  reliability." - Reliability can be inferred if evidence falls within firmly-rooted hearsay  exception.  (this may trump unavailability qualifier altogether)  Firmly rooted  exceptions probably include: 1) coconspirator statements 2) excited utterances 3) medical diagnosis 4) business records 5) dying declarations - Otherwise show particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. INHERENTLY TRUSTWORTHY - Idaho v. Wright  (p.441) - cannot use  corroborating evidence to prove trustworthiness.  Statement must be  trustworthy by virtue of its inherent trustworthiness.  Child's statement about  being molested should be judged on whether 1) child had motive to lie, and  2) given child's age, whether statement are of type one would expect a child  to fabricate, and 3) spontaneity.  CANNOT look to independent clinical  evidence of molestation to show that child's statement is trustworthy. d. OK b/c statement probably true and cross-x will be of little use. B. Theories of Confrontation Clause - hearsay does not violate Confrontation Clause if it is  reliable.  Reliability is unimportant or assumed if can cross-x W or falls within traditional  hearsay exceptions.
Image of page 28
Image of page 29
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern