Case 4.1 Summarize The Federal Rules Of Evidence

Eyewitness evidence has always been considering critical information when it comes to court trials and convictions. But how reliable are eyewitnesses? Scientific research has shown that eyewitness’s memories are often not accurate or reliable. Human memory is very malleable and is easily changed by suggestion. Relying on eyewitness evidence instead of scientific data often leads to wrongful convictions. Scientific evidence is much more reliable, and should be more important in court cases than eyewitness evidence.

* 2. newly-discovered evidence which, if introduced at the trial, would probably have produced a

“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).

The government, as the proponent of hearsay evidence offered pursuant to hearsay exception, has "the burden of proving that [the statement comes] within [the] . . . exception"). Thus, a party offering a purported record under the Federal Rules bears the burden of proving that the record in question falls within the exception. See Rule 803; United States v. Jefferson, No. 1:07cr209, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69593 (E.D. Va. Aug. 8, 2009).

Johnson further maintains that the circuit court erred by admitting documents that were not properly authenticated. The State counters that “the appearance and contents of each of the documents contained sufficient information from which the factfinder could have reasonably concluded that the document was what the State purported it to be.” We hold that the documents admitted against Johnson were properly authenticated.

Thus, any out of court statements made by witnesses and/or victims to law enforcement must be excluded unless the defendant had prior opportunity to cross-examine the unavailable witnesses (Byrom, 2005). The only non-testimonial statements that would be utilized in court, without direct testimony from the witness and/or complainant, were the taped 911 phone calls reporting the incident. If the victim testified, their previous statements would be allowed as evidence without limitation because the witness was subjected to cross-examination. However, if the victim refused to testify, any testimonials made to law enforcement were not allowed as evidence in the court proceedings.

The reliability if an eyewitness testimony is questionable. The witness may be so certain that the person that thy are pointing out is one hundred per cent the suspect or they could be so certain when it comes to retelling the incident, although these people are so sure on what it is they are doing, their testimony cannot always accurate. Due to the lack of accuracy with eyewitness

Turning to the case of Guy Paul Morin, one will see that the witness account played a great deal in the conviction of Morin. Mr. X falsely testified against Morin because he did not like Morin. The crown also used evidence from undercover officers where statements of Morin were recorded on a 60 minute tape recorder, which the officers believed to be 90 minutes. This made the case interesting because the crown used this instance for saying that Morin confessed to the crime after 60 minutes. This showed false accusation that was made both by the police officers and crown attorneys.

GSMC and Ocwen objected to the statement and the objection was sustained. “[W]ith respect to evidentiary rulings on admissibility generally and rulings with respect to relevance specifically, the trial judge is vested with wide, wide discretion.” Schmitt v. State, 140 Md. App. 1, 17 (2001). Here, Sucklal was prohibited from testifying as to the contents of the correspondence because Md. Rule 5-1002 requires that “[t]o prove the content of a writing . . ., the original writing . . . is required, except as otherwise provided in these rules or by statute.” Likewise, Sucklal was prohibited from testifying as to statements made by the author of the correspondence because Md. Rule 5-802 generally prohibits the admission of “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Md. Rule 5-801(c). Finally, litigants must be afforded “a reasonable opportunity to present material that may be pertinent to the court’s decision as required by Maryland Rule 2-501.” Balt. Street Builders v. Stewart, 186 Md. App. 684, 691 (2009). Sucklal, however, was not denied an opportunity to oppose GSMC and Ocwen’s motion for summary judgement. Indeed, Sucklal failed to respond to the motion for summary

For these reasons, the government argued that Petitioner’s reliance on the law-of-the-case doctrine was misplaced. The government emphasized that Petitioner’s

7. “Describe”, used in connection with any act, occurrence, or physical facts, shall include but not to be limited to the following: the identity of every person known to have been involved in or to have witnessed the act or occurrence, the date or dates of any such act or occurrences, and a description of any documents, records, or things documenting or involved in such act, occurrence, or fact.

Mr. Stringfellow’s false declarations had not substantially affected the proceedings at the time of his recantation. In order for §1623(d) to apply the false declaration cannot substantially affect the proceeding. (Cite). In Dahle, the defendant was convicted at the trial level of making false declarations. United States v. Dahle, 985 F.2d 575 (9th Cir. 1993). She challenged that her false testimony did not substantially affect proceedings because the delay between her initial statements and her recantation did not prejudice the government. Id. However, the court held that the false testimony did in fact substantially affect the proceeding because the court relied on her statement as the sole basis of its ruling. Id. Therefore,

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.

In the case of a crime assault and suspicion of rape of a 14 year-old girl; Jones, Walsh and Bert were arrested. During the investigation, the police obtain statement from a man name Bland providing additional information that suspect Jones was involved in three separate assaults and rapes of juveniles over three days. The prosecution filed charges against Jones, Walsh and Bert for their involvement in the crime. The suspect, Bert then hired an attorney to defend him and explains to his lawyer that he did not participate in any acts of raping these girls and that he was only present one time with Jones and all he did was hit one of the girls. Bert also goes on to say that he can prove this because at the times the other rapes are alleged to have occurred, he was with Mook, who is currently out of the country on a mountain climbing trip and will not return for 2 months. Bland also contacts the prosecutor’s office and provides a written statement to the prosecutor that Walsh was not present during any of the rapes. (Case Study, n.d.)

induce the speaker to withdraw it and to admit that it had been mistaken, must