Evidence 3/13

Witness Testimony and Hearsay Exceptions

In legal proceedings, the admissibility of witness testimony often hinges on prior statements made during trials, hearings, or depositions.
Key considerations include whether the witness is subject to cross-examination and whether a predecessor in interest had a similar motive.

Background: The plaintiff's testimony in an earlier criminal case was deemed admissible posthumously by the estate.
- The court ruled that the prosecutor acted as a predecessor in interest.
- Similar motives were confirmed as the prosecutor's questions mirrored those the defense would ask at trial.
Outcome: The evidence was admitted due to the similarity of the motive in both cases.

Context: The witness testified regarding the motion to suppress evidence.
Key Testimony: Officer testified about administering Miranda warnings and the suspect waiving rights.
Admission of Evidence: Despite similar parties, the evidence was excluded at trial:
- Motives differed; the motion to suppress aimed to exclude confessions while trial sought guilt.

Scenario: A victim testified at a grand jury but recanted at trial, leading to a hearsay issue.
- Although it was former testimony, it did not meet the requirements of Rule 804(b)(1) as the defense did not cross-examine the victim.

Definition: Admissible statements made against a person's proprietary or pecuniary interests.
Williamson Case: Introduces a standard for evaluating statements:
- Assess each remark made in a conversation to determine applicability.
Example: Statements implicating the speaker are deemed reliable; those overwhelming blame others are viewed skeptically.
Harris Case: Allowed in evidence as Williamson's standard was satisfied—self-incrimination established by Harris.

Rule: Statements made by individuals who believe they are about to die may be admissible for their reliability and necessity.
- Shepard Case: Relied on dying words to identify poisoner, but...
Outcome: Statements not permitted if lack critical immediacy or intention.

Concept: If a party makes a witness unavailable through wrongful actions, they cannot claim the right to cross-examination.
Gray Case: Statements from deceased husband about being killed admitted; the wife was partly responsible for his absence:
- She admitted to killing him to prevent his testimony, thus leading to admissibility.

Focus: Distinct provisions exist under Rule 803 that often come up in bar exams; notably, Present Sense Impression and Excited Utterance.

Definition: Statements describing an event immediately as it happens.
Testing for Admissibility: Must occur during or immediately after the event. Reliability hinges on incapacity to lie due to immediacy.
- Example: Witness calling 911 while watching an ongoing burglary.
Significance: Admissibility rests on promptness and directness of the statement in relation to the event.

Definition: Statements made during a state of excitement concerning a startling event.
Conditions for Admission: Statement must be made when the declarant is still under the stress of excitement. It should relate to the event.
- Example: Call made right after a dog attack, reflecting excitement and trauma.

In both categories, the test involves the reliability of statements made under stressful or immediate conditions. Courts often weigh the need for cross-examination.
- Judge Posner's critique suggests that spontaneity does not guarantee reliability, highlighting the debate surrounding hearsay.

Rule Definition: Statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment and relevant to the medical situation are admissible.
Criteria: Involves describing medical history, symptoms, or sensations.
- Reliability: People typically don’t lie to doctors, making these statements trustworthy.
Example: Statements made to medical professionals discussing symptoms or direct causes to aid treatment.

Key Cases: Discuss various cases illustrating the application of this rule in situations involving elder abuse or domestic violence, where identity or actions of avengers directly impact the treatment.

Understanding how witness statements and hearsay exceptions work is crucial for navigating legal proceedings. Each case's specifics dictate the admissibility and relevance of past utterances, framed largely around perceived motivations and the timing of statements.