Hearsay is not confined to oral statements or writings. Nonverbal conduct that is the equivalent of a verbal statement can be hearsay. All courts agree that conduct intended as a substitute for words is within the hearsay prohibition when offered to prove the truth of the intended assertion. Assertive conduct of this type would include physical gestures such as sign language, affirmative nods, or communicative motions in answer to questions, or identification of a person by pointing to him.
A related and more difficult question is presented when the actor – declarant does not intend his conduct to communicate anything. …show more content…
Instead, she just nodded head and pointed to the defendant. This action is a kind of non-verbal hearsay.
On cross-examination, Defense Counsel offers a prior statement given by Miss Maggie on the day in question, where Miss Maggie gave a statement to the investigating police officers called to the college. In the statement offered by Defense Counsel, Miss Maggie told the police that she did not clearly see who had made the statement about the presence of a bomb in the building referred to during Direct Examination. In this situation, readings Miss Maggie also be regarded as hearsay. Obviously, Miss Maggie clearly did not see who made the statement, which the bomb planted in the school building. She just could not admit that I heard this statement from a student and certainly can not say who it was really.
Especially good example can be considered hearsay when questioning Mr. Mickie. According to Mr. Mickie, Miss Maggie turned to him and told him that she had just heard a student say that a bomb had been planted somewhere in the building. Mr. Mickie also testifies that when he asked Miss Maggie which student said the bomb had been planted, she just stared wide-eyed at Mr. Mickie and slowly shook her head.
Analyzing data contention Miss Maggie should be noted that this is a hearsay. In one case, a verbal when it directly transfers the circumstances are known. Otherwise, it was a non-verbal hearsay. The statement is rumored months ago that Maggie was
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
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.
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
While searching the house the police officers found a .22 caliber rifle gun that was introduced into evidence. During the trial the defendants grandmother claims that she didn’t know why the officers wanted to search her home, because they didn’t tell her what was
Plaintiff Jane Paul moves the Court for its order barring Defendant or his witnesses from referring to or presenting any evidence or argument regarding Ms. Paul’s past alcoholism, her DWI conviction, or the Defendant’s religious beliefs, because such evidence is irrelevant and could unduly prejudice the jury. A fair trial requires that the jury consider only the evidence relevant to the issues. Ford v. Gordon, 990 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999). Evidence is relevant only if it “tends to prove or disprove a fact at issue” or bears on the witness’s credibility. Id. For example, while a witness’s reputation for being truthful is relevant, the witness’s character flaws unrelated to truthfulness are not; such evidence is usually offered only to prejudice the jury. State v. Eisele, 414 S.W.3d 507, 515 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013) (holding that evidence of witness’s use of profanity was irrelevant to witness’s credibility
The opinion stated that the two-step interrogation technique of waiting until the suspect had confessed to relay their Miranda warnings served to render the warning ineffective, so the statements that followed as a result of the strategy were inadmissible. The mere recitation of the Miranda warning
The definition of hearsay is “a statement a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.” FRE 801(c)(2). Song’s testimony is not hearsay because Song is a party opponent in this case. FRE 801(d)(2)(A). In this case, the testimony would be admissible under FRE 804(b)(1) because the Kensington cooking class instructor is not available to testify under FRE 804(a)(4). Also, the instructor gave statement directly to Song at the cooking class in the same way that Song would be testifying at the trial. Moreover, the Defendant would be able to identify the instructor for cross-examination purposes plus Song would be on trial for cross-examination of the testimony for the truth of the matter asserted. FRE 804(b)(1).
In Harper Lee’s, To Kill a Mockingbird, Tom Robinson is charged with the rape of a white girl. Tom is facing a false charge due to being ranked in a lower social class. In the testimony of Mayella Ewell and Tom Robinson, each victim is told to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. There are similarities and differences in each of the victim’s claims, due to the whole truth not being told. An example of a similarity in between each the testimonies would be that both Tom and Mayella told the truth about Tom passing the Ewell house every time he would pick for Mr. Link Deas.
Although eyewitness testimony can be significant when displaying it to a judge or a jury, years of supportive social science research has sustained that eyewitness identification is often unreliable. As the Innocence Project website illustrates, studies show that the human mind is nowhere near like a ‘tape recorder’ and we as humans do not record events exactly as we see them. Instead, witness recollection is just like any other evidence at a crime scene and must be preserved carefully and sensibly retrieved or it can be considered as contaminated.
This memo that Ms. Steinman mentioned in her testimony as well as the Park crew’s hearsay statement that Ms. Steinman claimed she had overheard may raise a multiple hearsay issue. However, each layer of hearsay is admissible.
The article, When I Witnesses Talk, covers the issue of eyewitness testimonies and their reliability with memory conformity. Often when two people experience the same event they both have very different recollections of the occurrence. One event within the journal article incorporates the murder of Jill Dando, within this investigation there was a lineup where 16 witnesses were asked to identify the suspect, where only 1 of the 16 witnesses recognized him. The police conducted a second lineup where for example one witness stated that they were 95% sure that the suspect that they identified was at the scene of the crime, yet in the original lineup that person was unable to identify anyone from the lineup. One key piece of information was discovered,
An example of this is when Bob was describing her injuries putting in many details over exaggerating her wounds which put the jury under the impression that she had been beaten severely by Mr. Robinson, but when he was questioned why he didn’t bring Mayella to a doctor, he merely dismissed this question. There are no medical records for this case, thus Bob may be lying about her injuries. This begins to uncover the fact that Bob Ewell is in fact manufacturing a tale to tell in court.
The State is presenting Kelli McDonald against the defendant to testify to her lab report. Similar to Dodd and Melendez-Diaz, the defendant in this case has the right to cross-examine Kelli McDonald regarding her capacity as a chemist on his case and her present capacity capacity in order to display the possibility of impropriety. Since Kelli McDonalds’s lab report and testimony belong to the core testimonial class of evidence, her testimony directly relates to the defendant’s defense because there is a break in the chain of custody when the Sheriff’s department’s exerted control over the evidence could display the possibility of
Annas testimony could be considered inadmissible in court as in could be viewed as a false statement or could be altered. R.v. Khelawon, 2006 had five victims that were to testify against the manager of the home for assaulting the residents. Four out of the five passed away, and the fifth victim was not capable of proving a testimony. The court was unsure if the five victims evidence would be considered admissible because they were no longer around to testify against the accused. The statements that were given by the victims would be regarded as hearsay evidence (Anderson et al. 2013, p