Introducing Evidence Essays

Introducing Evidence Essays Introducing Evidence Essay Introducing Evidence Essay In order to present the taped statements against Sanders. the declarant ( Blair ) must be unavailable as a informant harmonizing to Fed. R. Evid. 804. The statements by Blair autumn under an exclusion to the rumor regulation. Fed. R. Evid. 804 ( B ) ( 3 ) . which provides that when a declarant is unavailable as a informant. statements against involvement are non excluded by rumor. When a prosecuting officer seeks to present grounds of a statement that inculpates the accused. a figure of tribunals require that statement be against the declarants involvement and that there be documentation. Factors that tribunals look at for documentation include motivation. general character of the declarant. whether more than one individual heard the statement. whether it was made spontaneously and the timing of the declaration and relationship between the declarant and the informant. Here. Blairs statement was surely against his involvement as it could subject him to condemnable liability every bit good as Drum sanders. As for documentation. Blair did non hold a strong motivation to lie because he did non cognize he was talking with an clandestine agent. He believed that he was talking to a prospective involvement in the counterfeiting strategy. When these types of statements are introduced. Confrontation Clause issues originate. Under the 6th amendment. an accused has the right to face the informant against him. The tribunals have shifted in their attack to the analysis sing the confrontation clause. In Ohio v. Roberts. the Court treated the inquiry of when the Confrontatiion Clause prohibits the debut of out of tribunal statements against a condemnable suspect. The Court created a dependability trial and conditioned the admissibility of hearsay grounds on whether it fell under a firmly rooted rumor exception or bears particularized warrants of trustworthiness . Firmly rooted exclusions included aroused vocalizations. statements refering medical diagnosings. and co-conspirator statements. If the rumor statement did non fall within a steadfastly rooted exclusion. particularised warrants of trustiness may let it to come in. The statement must hold sufficient grounds of dependability. The Roberts attack was criticized as vague and inadequate to protect the defendant’s rights. The Court in Crawford v. Washington rejected the Roberts attack. stating its malleable attack frequently fails to protect against paradigmatic confrontation violations . The Crawford tribunal explained the trial in Roberts is too wide in that it applies the same manner of analysis whether or non the rumor consists of ex parte testimony. which frequently consequences in close constitutional examination in instances that are far removed from the nucleus concerns of the clause. Additionally. the Court said it is. at the same clip. excessively narrow in that it admits statements that do dwell of antique parte testimony upon a mere determination of dependability. Under this analysis. 804 ( B ) ( 3 ) . a statement against involvement. does non fall within a firmly rooted exception so the tribunal must turn to whether it has peculiar warrants of trustiness. The Court in Crawford stepped off from the Roberts attack and alternatively created a new philosophy upon analysing the Sixth Amendment. They foremost said that it merely applies to witnesses against the accused and so. rumor statements merely raise concerns with the Confrntation Clause when a declarant Acts of the Apostless like a informant. A informant was defined as one who bore testimony. and the tribunal adopted a differentiation between testimonial and non testimonial statements. The tribunal in Crawford did non put out what constitutes as testimonial or non testimonial. but stated that the Government can present testimonial statements where the declarant testifies during a test. hearing. or where the suspect had a anterior chance to traverse analyze the declarant and the declarant must be unavailable. While testimonial statements were non explicitly defined. the Court provided that testimonial statements about ever include ex parte in- tribunal testimony or its functional equi valent- that is material such as affidavits tutelary scrutinies. anterior testimony that the suspect was unable to cross-examine or similar pretrial statements In turn toing nontestimonial statements. the Court concluded that Where not testimonial statements are at issue. it is inconsistent with the Framers design to afford the States flexibleness in their development of hearsay law- as does Roberts. and every bit would an attack that exempted such statements from Confrontation Clause scrutiny wholly. Therefore. where non testimonial statements are concerned. the dependability analysis in Ohio v. Roberts still applies. Therefore. the issue of whether the Confrontation clause will exclude this testimony depends on whether the statements by Blair are testimonial or non testimonial. In Davis. the tribunal went farther to separate whether statements are testimonial or non-testimonial in the class of a 911 call question. Based on Crawford and Davis. illustrations of non-testimonial statements include statements are made to decide an exigency. are an aroused vocalization. or made chiefly for the intent of obtaining medical intervention or diagnosing. But statements made in a more adversarial puting. such as preliminary hearing. before a expansive jury. at a former test. or police questions. are testimonial. Testimonial statements normally set up past behavior. It would look the statements. measured from the position of the declarant ( Blair ) were non testimonial because they were non made for the intents of trying to province what happened in the yesteryear or for the intent of back uping what Blair thought was an fact-finding or accusative procedure. In add-on. Blair was non doing the statement in a formal proceeding and had no ground to believe the statement would be used against him at a condemnable proceeding. Where non testimonial statements are concerned. the 6th amendment confrontation clause demand does non use and the tribunal has established that Roberts is non dead. Therefore. the dependability of these statements would necessitate to be analyzed. Under the Roberts criterion. Blair’s remarks. although against involvement. make non fall under a steadfastly rooted exclusion and would non hold been admissible unless there were particularised warrants of trustiness. Finding dependability in a statement that is against declarants involvement but inculpates another individuals can be hard because tribunals have concerns such as whether it is a statement that bolsters the accused place or if it is seeking to switch incrimination. Here. there were statements made that could incriminate Blair. tilting towards dependable. In add-on. Blair had no ground to believe he was being subjected to patrol question. However. if the tribunal for some ground found the statement testimony. Confrontation clause anaylsis would come in. This would necessitate the declarant to be unavailable and the accused have had a opportunity to face the informant against him. While Blair is unavailable. Sanders neer had an chance to traverse examine Blair. so the statement would be excluded.