The Hearsay Rule
1. Explain why the Hearsay Rule was developed and why the admission of hearsay in a criminal trial may violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights.
a. Hearsay is an out of court statement offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The Hearsay Rule was developed in order to prevent unreliable testimony from being admitted in court and misleading the jury. Hearsay was considered unreliable because it was not given under oath, cannot be heard and observed by the jury, and cannot be cross-examined. Being crossed examined allows the court and jury to assess the declarant’s ability to perceive initially, remember accurately, and narrate correctly the event that occurred. Hearsay can be seen as a violation of the defendant’s Sixth …show more content…
Explain two ways to introduce testimony if the witness claims to have no memory of the incident.
a. Present the court with the police report. Call witnesses who were at the scene of the crime that will corroborate the facts.
8. Explain what an attorney must do prior to introducing testimony of an expert witness.
a. An attorney should set a foundation of the witness’s area of expertise and reliability. Ask the witness questions that will speak to the witnesses’ credibility and knowledge like, what is your educational background? What kind of training have you received in your field of work? Once you have established his area of expertise you should ask the court to move that witness as an expert witness in his/her area of expertise.
9. Define prior statements made by witnesses in relation to the hearsay rule and provide the rules by which such decisions would be used to rule whether hearsay would apply.
a. A prior statement is defined as a statement that has been made by a party or a party’s representative that is being used to be offered in evidence by that party’s opponent. Fed.R. Evid. 801 (d) removes hearsay from certain prior statements of a testifying witness. The categories that would render the statement admissible are as …show more content…
Specified Prior Inconsistent statements ii. Specific Prior Consistent statements iii. Prior Identifications of a person.
10. Prior inconsistent statements are admissible to impeach and prior consistent statements can be used to rehabilitate a witness who has been impeached. Discuss the benefit of using these statements at trial versus the confusion they may cause the jurors.
a. Prior Inconsistent statements: The benefit that comes along with prior inconsistent statements is that it will help you impeach a witness.
b. Prior Consistent statements: The benefit that comes along with prior consistent statement is that if your witness is impeached due to prior inconsistent statement, this will allow you to rehabilitate your witness. Making them a credible witness once again.
c. Jury confusion: It will be unclear on whether or not the witness is
a. Hearsay is an out of court statement offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The Hearsay Rule was developed in order to prevent unreliable testimony from being admitted in court and misleading the jury. Hearsay was considered unreliable because it was not given under oath, cannot be heard and observed by the jury, and cannot be cross-examined. Being crossed examined allows the court and jury to assess the declarant’s ability to perceive initially, remember accurately, and narrate correctly the event that occurred. Hearsay can be seen as a violation of the defendant’s Sixth …show more content…
Explain two ways to introduce testimony if the witness claims to have no memory of the incident.
a. Present the court with the police report. Call witnesses who were at the scene of the crime that will corroborate the facts.
8. Explain what an attorney must do prior to introducing testimony of an expert witness.
a. An attorney should set a foundation of the witness’s area of expertise and reliability. Ask the witness questions that will speak to the witnesses’ credibility and knowledge like, what is your educational background? What kind of training have you received in your field of work? Once you have established his area of expertise you should ask the court to move that witness as an expert witness in his/her area of expertise.
9. Define prior statements made by witnesses in relation to the hearsay rule and provide the rules by which such decisions would be used to rule whether hearsay would apply.
a. A prior statement is defined as a statement that has been made by a party or a party’s representative that is being used to be offered in evidence by that party’s opponent. Fed.R. Evid. 801 (d) removes hearsay from certain prior statements of a testifying witness. The categories that would render the statement admissible are as …show more content…
Specified Prior Inconsistent statements ii. Specific Prior Consistent statements iii. Prior Identifications of a person.
10. Prior inconsistent statements are admissible to impeach and prior consistent statements can be used to rehabilitate a witness who has been impeached. Discuss the benefit of using these statements at trial versus the confusion they may cause the jurors.
a. Prior Inconsistent statements: The benefit that comes along with prior inconsistent statements is that it will help you impeach a witness.
b. Prior Consistent statements: The benefit that comes along with prior consistent statement is that if your witness is impeached due to prior inconsistent statement, this will allow you to rehabilitate your witness. Making them a credible witness once again.
c. Jury confusion: It will be unclear on whether or not the witness is