Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 11 views

    Pointer v. Texas Barber v. Page Ohio v. Roberts Dutton v. Evans

    Uploaded by

    joeblue147
    The document discusses the confrontation clause in criminal cases and its relationship to hearsay evidence. It notes that hearsay takes away the opportunity to confront the declarant. The Supreme Court has dealt with cases where hearsay admitted in criminal trials violated the confrontation clause, such as when the defendant did not have the chance to cross-examine witnesses. The Court has held that the prosecution must make reasonable efforts to find unavailable witnesses and prove unavailability before hearsay can be admitted. One case discussed allowed a co-conspirator statement as evidence when certain requirements were met.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pointer v. Texas Barber v. Page Ohio v. Roberts Dutton v. Evans

    Uploaded by

    joeblue147
    11 views1 page
    The document discusses the confrontation clause in criminal cases and its relationship to hearsay evidence. It notes that hearsay takes away the opportunity to confront the declarant. The Supreme Court has dealt with cases where hearsay admitted in criminal trials violated the confrontation clause, such as when the defendant did not have the chance to cross-examine witnesses. The Court has held that the prosecution must make reasonable efforts to find unavailable witnesses and prove unavailability before hearsay can be admitted. One case discussed allowed a co-conspirator statement as evidence when certain requirements were met.

    Original Description:

    gen

    Original Title

    Generally

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses the confrontation clause in criminal cases and its relationship to hearsay evidence. It notes that hearsay takes away the opportunity to confront the declarant. The Supreme Court has dealt with cases where hearsay admitted in criminal trials violated the confrontation clause, such as when the defendant did not have the chance to cross-examine witnesses. The Court has held that the prosecution must make reasonable efforts to find unavailable witnesses and prove unavailability before hearsay can be admitted. One case discussed allowed a co-conspirator statement as evidence when certain requirements were met.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    11 views1 page

    Pointer v. Texas Barber v. Page Ohio v. Roberts Dutton v. Evans

    Uploaded by

    joeblue147
    The document discusses the confrontation clause in criminal cases and its relationship to hearsay evidence. It notes that hearsay takes away the opportunity to confront the declarant. The Supreme Court has dealt with cases where hearsay admitted in criminal trials violated the confrontation clause, such as when the defendant did not have the chance to cross-examine witnesses. The Court has held that the prosecution must make reasonable efforts to find unavailable witnesses and prove unavailability before hearsay can be admitted. One case discussed allowed a co-conspirator statement as evidence when certain requirements were met.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    o

    Generally In criminal cases when evidence is offered against the defendant the defendant has a constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him In every hearsay setting there is declarant who is not here and that means in every hearsay introduction in every criminal case you could argue it violates constitutional right to confrontation However hearsay exceptions exist Most Constitutional evidence issues deal with the confrontation clause in criminal cases. Defendants have the constitutional right to confront witnesses and accusers. o Hearsay, by definition, takes away the opportunity to confront the declarant. Sup court has dealt with when does hearsay introduced in criminal case violate confrontation clause. In Pointer v. Texas, there was prior recorded testimony from preliminary hearings. D did not have a lawyer at the preliminary hearing and therefore no opportunity to cross examine and really confront the witnesses. Barber v. Page-Witness is theoretically unavailable but maybe actually is - witness is in jail in OK. Transcript is admitted. However, the witness was not factually unavailable because of an interstate agreement btw. TX and OK allowing shipping of prisoners. Ohio v. Roberts-Witness is said to be in California, probably unavailable. Court held that the prosecution must make a reasonable effort to find the witness and then prove that they are unavailable. Dutton v. Evans CASE: A cop is murdered. In Georgia, unlike the other 49 states + federal system, the concealment stage extends the existence of the conspiracy after arrest. One D walks by a cell of another D and says "if it wasn't for D Evans, we wouldn't be here now." This is one conspirator encouraging another to stay quiet-blame it on Evans. The Court held this admissible as a co-conspirator statement because it met the requirements: o No governmental misconduct. o There is no joint trial. o The statement was clearly limited. o The declarant had knowledge of the event.

    You might also like