Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The rule against hearsay and its rationale
Rationale against hearsay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The hearsay rule is a rule that applies in court when a statement is made out of court that is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted (legal-dictionary.com n.d.). Unfortunately, when this evidence is brought to court it is up to the judge and jury to determine whether the evidence offered as proof is credible. Therefore, the person that is testifying has to prove to the judge and jury that they in fact saw what happen or that they actually know what happen. Furthermore, they have to swear and affirm that their statement is the truth. Therefore, there are three major evidentiary rules to help the judge or jury make their determination. The three rules are before a witness is allowed to testify, they must generally swear or affirm that their testimony will be truthful, they must be personally presented at the trial or proceeding in order for the judge or jury to be allowed to observe the testimony firsthand and finally they are subject to cross-examination at the option of any party who did not call the witness to testify.
There were two major cases I have found that were a part of the establishment of the hearsay rule. The first case was White v. Illinois where at petitioner White’s trial he was charged with sexual assault upon S.G., a 4-year old girl and the trial court ruled that testimony recounting S.G’s statement which described the crime and was offer by her babysitter, her mother, an investigating officer, an emergency room nurse, and a doctor was admissible under the state law of hearsay with the
…show more content…
They must also be under oath and subject to cross-examination instead of having someone to repeat what they said out of court. Therefore, they have to appear in front of the person being accused of committing the crime and make their statement in front of them as well as the judge and
“The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that ‘no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.’ U.S. Const. amend. V. The related provision in the Tennessee Constitution states that ‘in all criminal prosecutions, the accused . . . shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself.’ Tenn. Const. art. I, § 9.” State v. Blackstock, 19 S.W.3d 200, 2000 Tenn. LEXIS 168 (Tenn. 2000). The Supreme court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona that before a subject can be questioned by the police they must be warned that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them, that they have a right to an attorney, and that if they cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to them before interrogation
To conclude, researchers use a three-stage process that proves eyewitness testimony is not an ideal situation. A series of danger signals during eyewitness identification proves that eyewitnesses are not necessarily accurate and lastly that many psychological factors can affect eyewitness testimony.
Thus the accuser can pick anyone they do not like to hang. There is more irony when the excellency does not deal with lies. “‘Is that document a lie? If it is a lie, I will not accept it! What do you say to me?
"That in all capital or criminal Prosecutions, a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for Evidence and be admitted counsel in his Favor, and to a fair and speedy Trial by an impartial Jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, (except in the Government of the land and naval Forces in Time of actual war, Invasion or Rebellion) nor can he be compelled to give Evidence against himself. "
Jurors may spot a witness that is trying to fool them, and diligent cross-examination can be an especially effective tool for ferreting out lies. But, jurors will almost certainly not spot a witness who believes their statements are the truth, but has fooled themselves. When testimony is plausible, how can jurors tell whether it is true or false? Jurors should know the factors that impact eyewitness reliability so that they can make more informed decisions about the trustworthiness of such testimony. Moreover, jurors routinely attribute far greater weight to eyewitness testimony than is prudent, making expert testimony on the issue all the more critical. Louisiana is currently one of two states to apply a per se bar on admitting expert testimony to inform jurors of factors related to eyewitness reliability. This paper contends that expert testimony regarding eyewitness reliability (expert eyewitness testimony) is an effective way of improving jury determinations and should be admissible in Louisiana at the discretion of trial court judges for that
Witnesses are often called before a court of law to testify in trials and their testimony is considered crucial in the identification and arrest of a suspect and the likelihood of a jury convicting a defendant.
The goal of most of these studies is to improve the way eyewitness testimonies are treated rather than completely eliminating them from the legal system. Researchers suggest to inform jurors, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and everyone involved in court cases about the unreliability of eyewitness testimonies and to inform them about how to tell between a credited eyewitness and a discredited eyewitness. The more people that are informed about this issue, the less inaccurate convictions there will
Most of these defendants couldn’t afford private attorneys and depended upon public defenders. For instance, Joe Moore had two prior convictions and was facing a maximum of a 90 year sentence for selling three grams of cocaine. However, Moore begged his public defender to call Eliga Kelly to stand in his defense. Moore claimed that Kelly witnessed him shoe Coleman off of his property. For whatever reasons, his public defender never bothered to call Kelly to the stand or even question him privately. After all, Eliga Kelly was considered a star witness for the prosecution, but, as a result of that negligence, Moore was sentenced to 90 years. Unlike most criminal informants, Eliga Kelly refused to lie under oath and in a subsequent trial for a different defendant, the prosecutor called Kelly to the stand. Kelly contradicted Coleman’s testimony by naming several defendants, including Joe Moore, who refused to sell drugs to
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,...
...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.
Truth be told, eyewitnesses always play a crucial role in the judgment process. In the present justice system, the testimony from eyewitnesses could possibly be one of the most reliable evidences and influence jurors on judging corresponding perpetrator. In psychology, researchers use eyewitness memory instead of any other expressions.
Juror three wanted so badly for the young boy to be guilty that every time any of the witness’s testimonies were questioned or tested, he would not adhere to the facts. With that being said, he would only believe what everyone else beside the boy told him. When the group tested whether the old man actually heard and witnessed what he did, juror three was quick to say that he didn’t care. He didn’t care about time, logic, or reasoning. The last piece of evidence he had that justified his verdict was that the woman witnessed it. He said if all the other evidence was thrown out that last piece was all they needed. When the jury proved that she could have worn glasses and could have been mistaken, he refused to believe that there was any possibility of a mistake because that would make him have to change his verdict. Therefore, he reverted back to the other evidence then realized he couldn’t because he said to throw away the other
...’ 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.
In the case of eyewitness testimony, this may lead to wrongful convictions. The history of the United States justice system, like those of other countries is littered with wro... ... middle of paper ... ... ccuracy may be considered more important in eyewitness testimony than in any other memory use on the basis that the consequences of eyewitness accounts can be severe, and is not to be taken light-heartedly.
From a legal standpoint, eyewitness memories are not accurate. Though they all illustrate the same concept, each paper described different ways eyewitness memories were altered. One’s memory can be misleading by their own attributions towards the situation, what they choose to see and not see, and if the individual has been through a single event or repetitive stressful events. As human beings, our memories on all matters are not concrete. When retelling stories, we tend to modify the situation and tailor certain events, making the information provided unreliable. An eyewitness testimony changes the track of a trial and information that is given to the court can be ambiguous and can cause bias towards the circumstances. Eyewitnesses can even be confident in their retelling of a situation and explain a complete event, when in fact, that particular event never