Confrontation Clause Summary

Truab had subpoenaed. The opposing counsel tried to argue that it was too late in the case to introduce additional witnesses. Ms. Traub argued that it was not because our client is LEP and did not have counsel until halfway through the case. The hearing office agreed with the opposing counsel but opted to hear from the EMT as he was there and responded to the incident. Before the EMT was called in the opposing counsel stated that the ex-husband would like to testify. He state that day he just asked her to go to the mountains and she said no and pushed him and that he was unsure why the police showed up. Then the EMT was then called in and asked to testify. He was first asked by Ms. Traub to recount what happened that day. He stated that he responed to the call and found out client upstairs in the house and our client with a hematoma over her eye and clear symptoms of dizziness such as a lack of balance. He was then asked questions by the opposing counsel. She asked if he had seen and blood or had to apply any stitches. He promptly responded no and that he only things he treated her for were the hematoma on our client’s eye and her dizziness. The judge then asked him if he felt that our client was lying or faking her

In a United States courtroom, evidence is king. There are all different kinds of evidence that can be brought into court, and these types of evidence are statistical, anecdotal, analogical, and testimony. Testimony is defined by Merriam Webster dictionary as “something that someone says especially in a court of law while formally promising to tell the truth” (2014). During a trial, testimony is heard supporting both sides of the court, the prosecution and defense. Though some of that testimony is based on hard facts, or expert testimony (deemed an expert by the judge), some of it can be easily misconstrued, and some can be undeniable (such as expert testimony in relation to hard evidence such as DNA). But there remains one type of testimony that carries an unprecedented weight in a courtroom, and that is eyewitness testimony. Some of the problems associated with eyewitness testimony are that is it unreliable, and it is leading or suggestive to a jury. In this paper I am going to address these issues as well as explore some ethical issues around eyewitness testimony, how it can effect the presumption of guilt, and who should have the burden of proof under certain circumstances.

The attorney for the Smith’s will likely to argue as well the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree which holds that evidence gathered with the assistance of illegally obtained information must be excluded from trial. Thus, if an illegal interrogation leads to the discovery of physical evidence, both the interrogation and the physical evidence may be excluded, the interrogation because of the exclusionary rule, and the physical evidence because it is the “fruit” of the illegal interrogation. This doctrine is subject to three of important exceptions. The evidence will not be excluded (1) if it was discovered from a source independent of the illegal activity; (2) its discovery was inevitable; or (3) if there is attenuation between the illegal activity and the discovery of the evidence. (Cornell University Law School,

“Testimonials during court hearings are performed under oath, hence the statements of an individual being examined are assumed to be true and no other statement should be falsified or forged. When the officer does not pronounce the truth in court, he or she is still capable of providing a reason for his deception, based on a substitute arrangement, such as when he or she is operating as a witness to the prosecution and is not considered as the defendant in a court case. However, it is also required that the officer is conscious of the rules of the court system that he or she has sworn to tell the truth during examination” (Chevigny , 1969).

This violation being in the form of a videotape, which could have completely changed the outcome of the case. On this videotape there was a full confession from Ricky Simmons. Barney Ward knew all about this videotape (as it was shared with him along with all other information) yet he chose not to bring this evidence to the table and share it with the jury. Judge Jones ruled that the tape was not a Brady violation. “The tape was not really hidden; it was handed over after the trial, sort of a delayed submission (Grisham pg. 258)”.This one piece of evidence alone would have been enough to change the opinions of the jury and change the outcome of the trail. However because Barney Ward did NOT show this video, this is a clear violation of Mr. Williamson’s 6th Amendment, which guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions there must be an “effective” assistance of counsel (Cole and Smith pg. 84). In my opinion at no point in this trial was Ron Williamson’s attorney an “effective assistance of counsel”.

There was suppressed evidence in the case that showed that Dr. MacDonald did not murder his family. The prosecutor Brian Murtagh told jurors that nothing at the crime scene supported MacDonald’s story of the four trespassers. When the defense asked to see the lab results, the prosecutor laid saying the documents had nothing to support MacDonald’s claims.

The Fourteenth Amendment has made the Sixth Amendment’s right to confrontation applicable to state court as well as federal court. The confrontation clause guarantees criminal defendants the opportunity to face the prosecution’s witnesses in the case against them and dispute the witnesses’ testimony (Find Law, n.d. 2015).

1983.” The District Court applying a four-factor test to determine, at the close of Graham’s evidence, when excessive use of force touches off of a 1983 cause of action inquiring inter alia, whether the force had been applied in a good-faith effort in order to maintain and reinstitute discipline or maliciously and sadistically just for the purpose of causing harm to an individual. The Court of Appeals affirmed, this test being endorsed as generally pertinent to claims of constitutionally excessive force being brought against any and all government officials, Graham’s argument that it was errored to require Graham to prove that the alleged excessive use of force was applied in malice and sadistically in order to cause harm to him. Reasonable jury holding that the Johnson v. Glick test resulted in the conclusion that the amount of force applied was not considered a constitutionally excessive

Mr. Shoemaker asserts that the trial judge’s interpretation of the consent order going forward was erroneous

The objection could be raised that does this expert witness pass The Frye Test and The Daubert Factors. Under Frye, experts determined the bounds of the reliability in their field. The expert is determined the bounds of reliability in this field of animal toxins. Under Daubert, the gate-keeping rule has been shifted to the judge. The judge will decide whether this expert's approach is sufficiently reliable to present to the jury. Depending on the judges feelings on whether or not Dr. Croak is truly an expert witness in his field will determine based on Frye and Daubert will an objection ultimately prevail.

Decision: (5-4) Yes, unless there are demonstrated “procedural safeguards” that can effectively secure the Fifth Amendment rights of the accused, the prosecution may not use any statements from questioning after the accused is

The Defendant, George Tiba (“Defendant Tiba”) and L.A. were both at a local bar, Walrus, on the night of Feb. 16, 2013. Walrus is a commonly known as a college bar, often filled with students from the University of Colorado. Defendant Tiba offered to purchase beverages for L.A. and her friend, who both accepted. Afterwards, Defendant Tiba continued to make inappropriate contact and statements to L.A. during their time at the bar. After a period of time, Defendant Tiba drove L.A. back to her apartment where the offenses occurred early in the morning on Feb. 17, 2013. L.A. went to the hospital later in the day on Feb. 17, where a SANE examination was conducted by a SANE certified nurse. From the evidence collected, the District Attorney commenced

Taking as true all the allegations of the Amended Claims, dismissal is appropriate for three independent reasons: (A) Dr. Stout cannot show that his purported reliance on the purported representations was reasonable or justified; (B) Dr. Stout has not alleged the existence of sufficiently specific representations necessary to sustain his claim; and (C) Dr. Stout’s claim is barred by the economic loss rule. These three defenses are discussed in order in

4. If the witness’s factual recollection of events differs in any important respect from the medical records, or from the version of facts set out in the Defendant, the statement should acknowledge this and comment upon these differences.

Because of the case, the court came up with a clean distinction between the confrontation and compulsory clauses. Even though the sixth amendment ranted Melendez-Diaz got a permit to be able to call the forensic expert and have them as a witness. Instead, this would somehow reduce the trouble of having more witnesses on the side of the defendant as opposed to the prosecution side. However, it is a requirement that there should be testimony produced by the forensic experts who carry out the test on chemical substances in such cases. This right was