Exceptions To Hearsay Case Study

Before going further, let me explain the charges you will hear. Section 222(5) defines murder as “a person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being.” Murder is first degree when it is planned and deliberate, and all murder that is not first-degree murder is second-degree murder. If Dr Kimball was provoked into killing his wife in the heat of passion then he will be guilty of manslaughter. However, the defence believes that he is not guilty. You will clearly hear the evidence to support this.

Merits: The respondent, Daniel Murphy, was convicted by a jury in an Oregon court of the second-degree murder of his wife. The victim died by strangulation in her home in the city of Portland, and abrasions and lacerations were found on her throat. There was no sign of a break-in or robbery. Word of the murder was sent to the estranged husband, Daniel Murphy. Upon receiving the message, Murphy promptly telephoned the Portland police and voluntarily came into Portland for questioning. Shortly after the respondent’s arrival at the station house, where he was met by retained counsel, the

2. Case Facts: On October 13, 1979, George Schnopps fatally shot his wife of 14 years. The victim and schnopps began having marital problems six months prior, when schnopps became suspicious that his wife was seeing another man. A few days prior to the incident, Schnopps threatened to make his wife suffer. On October 12, 1979 while at work asked a coworker to buy him a gun, telling the worker that he had been receiving threatening phone calls. Schnopps paid his coworker for the gun and ammunition. On the day of the incident, Schnopps told a neighbor he was going to call his wife and have her come pick up some things, and asked if them to keep the youngest child with her so he could talk to with his wife. When the wife went over Schnopps tried to convince his wife to stay with him, in response the wife made some vulgar comments which triggered Schnopps. He then shot her and then shot himself. Shortly after he called the neighbor and told her what had happened and she called the police. The defense offered evidence from friends and coworkers who noticed difference in Schnopps physical and emotional health after the victim had left him. The Commonwealth’s expert

Convicted for the murders of his wife and two kids, thirty-four years ago, Dr. MacDonald still endures the agony of being accused of killing his family. Even after twenty-four years of imprisonment and several unlawful court hearings, additional documentation continues to up hold Dr. MacDonald’s testimony.

Petitioner Michael Crawford stabbed a man who allegedly tried to rape his wife, Sylvia. At his trial, the State played for the jury Sylvia's tape-recorded statement to the police describing the stabbing, even though Crawford had no opportunity for cross-examination. The State sought to introduce a recorded statement that petitioner's wife Sylvia had made during police interrogation, as evidence that the stabbing was not in self-defense. Sylvia did not testify at trial because of Washington's marital privilege. The tape was played at trial, but she did not testify, testimonial statements are at issue, the only indicium of

The first court to hear the case was The Trial Courts of Virginia, who made the original decision to deny the motion to suppress evidence. Then the case traveled to The Intermediate Appellate Court, they reversed the decision by The Trial Courts of Virginia. The case then traveled to the Virginia Supreme Court, where it was reversed again. Then it made its way to the United States Supreme Court Reversed the decision of the Virginia Supreme Court again and remanded it for further proceedings.

In Brady v. Maryland, the United States Supreme Court examined whether or not the prosecutors had the right to suppress evidence that may have helped the defendant. Specifically, two defendants, Boblit and Brady were charged with murder. Both defendants had separate trials. The first defendant to stand trial was Boblit, who admitted his guilt. In Brady’s trial,

The Maybrick case is another occurrence of a spouse being harmed. Mrs. Maybrick was convicted for killing her husband with arsenic by the jury in light of circumstantial evidence. It appears like Mrs. Maybrick ought to have been absolved. The evidence against the spouse was that she had purchased arsenical flypaper and soon a while later Mr. Maybrick turned out to be sick with horrifying stomach and intestinal aggravation. Arsenic was found in his food The jury neglected to perceive that Mr. Maybrick was an incessant arsenic eater, which would clarify the arsenic around the house. She was blamed for poisoning the food with the lethal toxin. Mr. Maybrick however, had not eaten the food made by his wife the day that he turned out to be sick.

ISSUES -- Does the plaintiff deserved to be heard at a trial by a jury? Did the trial court acted righteously by dismissing the case in pretrial hearing? Did this decision damaged the plaintiff?

The admissibility of expert testimony from the past to the present, The Federal Rule of Evidence, Rule 702 (1975) the revision of Rule 702 (2000) and (2010), Frye v United States (1923), Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993), and Kumho Tire Co., v Carmichael (1999).

What did the trial court do? Who won and lost? What did the trial court say?

The rational for the present sense impression exception for hearsay stem from the notion that statement is reliable because the contemporaneity of the event observed and the hearsay statement describing it leaves no time for reflection. Thus, the likelihood of deliberate misrepresentation or faulty recollection is eliminated. People v. Brown 80 N.Y.2d 729, 734, 610 N.E.2d 369, 594 N.Y.S.2d 696 (1993); People v. Vasquez 88 N.Y. 2d. 561, 575, 670 N.E.2d. 1328, N.Y.S.2d 697 (1996); People v. Melendez 296 A.D.2d 424, 426, 744 N.Y.S.2d 485 (App. Div. 2d Dept. 2002). In People v. Semple the audio tape of the radio communication between the police officers during the police high speed chase provide no opportunity for any of the officer to reflect and to fabricate the statement. People v. Semple 174 Misc.2d 879, 882, 666 N.Y.S.2d 900 (Sup. Ct. 2d Dept. 1997). In People v. Melendez, the defendant made a 911 call shortly made after stabbing her boyfriend claiming that it was an accidental stabbing. The Appellant Division deem that the defendant does not appear to have sufficient time to fabricate anything on the 911 tape. People v. Melendez 296 A.D.2d 242, 244, 744 N.Y.S.2d 485 (App. Div. 2d Dept. 2002). In Jerkson case following the reasoning from People v. Semple and People v. Melendez when the unidentified woman saw that the police was apprehending the wrong man she dialed 911 to inform the police

2. According to the opinion, Mrs. Stowers was committed on the strength of the statement of two physicians that she was "mentally ill." Would that evidence be sufficient today to have someone committed involuntarily? If not, what would the evidence have to prove? Why?

Christine knew that her alibi would not be believed. After all, both common sense and expert advice told Christine that “her well was poisoned” due to the fact that she was Leonard’s wife. First, spouses are not generally believed in court when they are put on the witness stand to testify for his or her spouse. It is assumed that wives will lie on behalf of their husband because they love their husband and don’t want to see them in prison. Also in this time frame of the 1950’s, wives relied financially on their husbands, and with their husbands in jail,

The hearsay rule is based inherently on the concise definition of hearsay. In this regard, hearsay can be defined as any statement other than that made by an individual in the process of testifying at a hearing or trial, which is offered for purposes of affording evidence of truth pertaining to a particular matter. According to the Cornell University Law School (2014), the hearsay rue is the rule that prohibits out of court statements from being admitted as evidence at a trial. B and large, the hearsay rule is motivated intrinsically by the understanding in the belief that hearsay is unreliable. For example, if a witnessed stopped at a scene of a car accident and a survivor intimated to him or her that the driver caused the accident, this statement cannot be admitted as evidence to prove the same. It is imperative to understand that the hearsay rule, according to the Cornell University Law School, bars all such evidence, whether oral or written.