Laws of Evidence
1367 words
6 pages
Laws of Evidence Assignment 5Using just the Federal Rules of Evidence and your knowledge of the hearsay rule and its exceptions, please discuss briefly whether each of the following nine out of court “statements” may be allowed into evidence or whether they are barred by the hearsay rule:
1) The five (5) statements that appear in “Practice Application 12.1" in your textbook, which appears at the end of Chapter 12 (page 323) of your textbook
2) The four (4) statements that appear in “Practice Application 13.1" in your textbook, which appears at the end of Chapter 13 (page 362-363) of your textbook
You do not need to cite outside cases for this assignment. I am just looking for a short explanation for each one as to whether it is …show more content…
In the hearsay definition, nonverbal conduct constitutes hearsay if it is intended as an assertion, if it is not intended as an assertion than it is not hearsay. Marge shook her head as an assertion that she saw who made the statement about the bomb. Therefore, this could be hearsay and not an exception to the rule. However, under Rule 803(2) “[a] statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused”, is an exception to the hearsay rule and can be admissible. It is believed that there is little time for reflection and therefore fabrication is a statement is given spontaneously or at the time an event is perceived. Therefore, this testimony can be used in the trial.
Practice Application 13.1
1. 911 call: The 911 call said, “I hear screaming coming from Apartment B at 123 Main Street. I think Fred is beating his wife again.” This falls under the present sense impression because the declarant was explaining an event while the declarant was perceiving it. Rule 803(1) of the Fed. R. Evid. Says, “[a] statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.” This was the case when the declarant called 911 while the event was taking place and therefore would be
Practice Application 13.1
1. 911 call: The 911 call said, “I hear screaming coming from Apartment B at 123 Main Street. I think Fred is beating his wife again.” This falls under the present sense impression because the declarant was explaining an event while the declarant was perceiving it. Rule 803(1) of the Fed. R. Evid. Says, “[a] statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.” This was the case when the declarant called 911 while the event was taking place and therefore would be