Hearsay Rule The history of the Hearsay Rule begins in the 1500s but it was not finalized until the early 1700s. The Hearsay rule is a rule that states that an out-of-court statement is not admissible in court. Any statement made by an individual other than the witness, not under oath, or prior to the current trial, is considered hearsay. Hearsay evidence is any statement made by a witness that is not based on that witness’s personal knowledge. (CJ Realities and Challenges, Pg. 270)
Hearsay is used in court to attempt to get the jury to believe something that was said out of court. For example, let’s say that Paul is on trial for burglary. George is testifying as a witness; however he did not actually see Paul commit a crime. He did however state that his friend Bob saw the burglary. This is an attempt
…show more content…
Washington is a United States Supreme Court decision that reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay statements in criminal cases is permitted. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Washington) The courts decided that cross-examination is required to enter statements to court made by witnesses who are no longer available. This case drastically changed how domestic violence cases are handled by removing evidence-based prosecution. The Crawford Court's decision renders most statements inadmissible without the accuser coming to court and testifying against the person he or she is accusing. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Washington)
Some individuals believe that some hearsay should be admissible and others should be excluded. In California v. Green, the Supreme Court rejected challenges to the use of statements by a witness who appeared forgetful and evasive at trail. This witness has also previously implicated the defendant while speaking with the police and in testimony at the defendants hearing. (Criminal Evidence: An Introduction, Pg. 287) The Reliability Theory comes into play with this case.
Carcasses attract scavengers. The Guilty Party by O. Henry showcases the untimely death of a girl of twelve, Liz. Above Chrystie Street on the east side, a strange bird stalks the children of the playground. Although people say it’s a stork, locals call it a vulture. In this case, Liz is the carcass that the vulture sets its eyes on.
Reasonable doubt plays a significant role in this particular case, as it requires a standard of unsurpassable evidence in order to be able to convict the plaintiff in a criminal proceeding. This is required under the Due Process Section in the Fifth Amendment of the American Constitution, allowing a safeguard and circumvention
The play “Doubt” by John Patrick Shanley began with a sermon by Father Brendan Flynn, a well liked and enlightened neighborhood priest, who says, "Doubt can be a bond as powerful and sustaining as certainty". (Shanley 6) Sister Aloysius Beauvier is a strict traditional nun, who was declared to protect and secure St. Nicholas Church School. Father Flynn seems to be the protagonist in the play and Sister Aloysius is the antagonist. The whole play, sister Aloysius Beauvier suspected Father Flynn of molesting a 12-year-old boy named Donald Muller, who is the first African-American student in the St. Nicholas Church School. I think that Sister Aloysius’s overreacting, because Father Flynn is innocent. In the middle of these two characters, Sister James is a young and innocent teacher who wants to be neutral between the conflict of Sister Aloysius and Father Flynn.
The reason being, the Supreme Court found that the expert evidence was not only useful, but was required to have a more in-depth understanding of the issues surrounding battered women. The rationale was, without expert testimony most people would be ignorant to spousal abuse. It was thought that without expert testimony, jurors would make assumptions about the stereotypes that may have been popularized by society as well ignore the importance of previous events that led up to the incident. Moreover, the trial judge charged the jurors properly, explaining that as long as there is some admissible evidence to establish the foundation for the expert 's opinion, he cannot subsequently instruct the jury to completely ignore the testimony. The judge also warned the jury that the more the expert relies on facts, not proven in evidence the less weight the jury may attribute to the opinion. Furthermore, expert evidence does not and cannot usurp the jury 's function of deciding whether, in fact, the accused 's perceptions and actions were reasonable. But fairness and the integrity of the trial process demand that the jury have the opportunity to hear that
Whitley, Kyles was tried for murder, convicted and sentenced to death. However, upon review of his case, it was discovered that the prosecution had failed to give evidence about a witness, a man named “Beanie”, and several other pieces of material evidence. Since these were not given to the defense and the evidence was significant, he was given a new trial (United states v., 1976). What separates this case from the others is the fact that the evidence suppressed was witness testimony and the witness’ background and prior statements. The testimony of “Beanie” in this case was important, as it had “significant inconsistencies and affirmatively self-incriminating assertions (Kyles v. whitley, 1995)”. Because this information and prior testimony relevant to the case weren’t released, the conviction was overturned. This is relevant to the dilemma because one of the areas that had importance to the defense was that the witness wasn’t consistent in their testimony and that led to issues with their effectiveness as a witness. Referring back to the dilemma and the officer’s conduct, the officer wasn’t consistent in their testimony, namely that they denied wrongdoing and later confessed. This shows that the officer is an inconsistent witness and that if this is discovered, and the prosecution must disclose that information, he can be impeached as a witness. This will mean that he is not as effective in the criminal justice
(Kennedy & Haygood, 1992; Williams & Loftus, 1994), which is worrying considering the growing and substantial body of evidence from laboratory studies, field studies, and the criminal justice system supporting the conclusion that eyewitnesses frequently make mistakes (Cutler & Penrod, 1995; Huff, 1987; Huff, Rattner, & Sagarin, 1986; Innocence Project, 2009; Wells, Small, Penrod, Malpass, Fulero, & Brimacombe, 1998). According to a number of studies, eyewitness misidentifications are the most common cause of wrongful convictions (Huff, Rattner, & Sagarin, 1986; Wells et al., 1998; Yarmey, 2003) and, through the use of forensic DNA testing, have been found to account for more convictions of innocent individuals than all other factors combined (Innocence Project, 2009; Wells, Memon, & Penrod, 2006).
In 1990, Brenda Koss shot her husband, Michael, while he slept and killed him consequently. Brenda Koss and a number of other witnesses testified about Michael’s ongoing abusive behaviors toward her. The Ohio Supreme Court recognized BWS as a defense in a criminal case. The Koss case is an example of how the law and perception on BWS evolved. In 1981, the state high court had refused to allow the admission of any evidence on BWS, believing that it had not yet been scientifically validated to sufficient extent. However in State v. Koss case, the court found that the professional literature and psychiatric understanding of BWS had very much improved; therefore, the court reversed itself and held that expert testimony on BWS could be admitted in a trial. The Court held that evidence of BWS was admissible through an expert testimony to help prove an element of self-defense —that is, Brenda Koss had a bona fide belief that she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that her only means of escape was the use of force (Bettman, 2011). This case illustrates how the court changed its opinion and perception on BWS as the public started to understand more about BWS and battered women. Unlike State v. Stewart (1988), BWS was positively used to support battered women’s acts of self-defense. Shortly after the Koss case was decided, the legislature passed a law recognizing and validating BWS; it permits the use of expert testimony in support of the defense.
Reasonable suspicion constitutes a stop by police. According to our textbook, the Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures, which is why is it important for police to justly stop a person (p. 17). The exclusionary rule states that any evidence obtained from improper police work, like an unwarranted stop, is not allowed in court.
McKinstry, R. (2007). "An Exercise in Fiction": The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, Forfeiture by Wrongdoing, and Domestic Violence in Davis v. Washington. Harvard Journal of Law & Gender , 531-542.
In the court of law, eyewitnesses are expected to present evidence based upon information they acquired visually. However, due to memory processing, presenting this information accurately is not always possible. This paper will discuss the reliability of eyewitness testimony, its use in a relevant court case, and how the reasonable person standard relates to eyewitness testimony.
...T. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of retrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(11), 1215-1226.
In the opening statements both side of the case make opening statements to lay the foundation of their cases. Opening statements are not allowed to be argumentative and cannot be considered evidence by the jury; they are the road maps laying out where each side intends to take its case. First the prosecution presented its case. They alleged Peterson killed his wife in their Modesto home because he was having an affair, then drove her body nearly 100 miles to San Francisco Bay and heaved it overboard from his small boat. Prosecution offered a steady drum beat of small bits of circumstantial evidence. From the Russian poetry Peterson read his mistress to the fishing gear in his alibi to the dessert featured on a particular episode of Martha Stewart Living, it added up to Peterson's guilt, they suggested. The defense countered that Modesto authorities unfairly targeted Peterson, ignoring important leads that didn't fit their theory. Defense said that, while prosecutors had only assembled a circumstantial case, they had five witnesses that were direct evidence of Peterson's innocence.
Vallas, G. (2011). A survey of federal and state standards for the admission of expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitnesses. American Journal of Criminal Law, 39(1), 97-146. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.pioproxy.carrollu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,cpid&custid=s6222004&db=aph&AN=74017401&site=ehost-live&scope=site
...’ testimony at trial. This rule has played a big role in the American system like in the case of Mapp V. Ohio. Ohio police officers had gone to a home of a women to ask her question about a recent bombing and requested to search her house. When she denied them access, they arrested her and searched her house which led them to find allegedly obscene books, pictures, and photographs.
Eyewitness testimony is especially vulnerable to error when the question is misleading or when there’s a difference in ethnicity. However, using an eyewitness as a source of evidence can be risky and is rarely 100% accurate. This can be proven by the theory of the possibility of false memory formation and the question of whether or not a memory can lie. For instance, a group of students saw the face of a young man with straight hair, then heard a description of the face supposedly written by another witness, one that wrongly mentioned light, curly hair. When they reconstructed the face using a kit of facial features, a third of their reconstructions contained the misleading detail, whereas only 5 percent contained it when curly hair was not mentioned (Page 359). This situation shows how misleading information from other sources can be profoundly altered.