RSS
Home
Talk about hearsay
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Fed R. Evid 801 (d)(1)(C) sounded like a witness I.D. Weinstein 2001, says it applies regardless of when the prior identification was made - whether at the scene of the crime, at a later chance encounter, ora at ta police line-up.(listing 4 cases from the late '60's early 70's). It also addresses "only the hearsay character of a statement of identification...." This identification rule goes on to admit hearsay of identification if it complies with the confrontational clause, Crawford. v. Washington and both the id witness and the hearsay to the id witness are available for cross examination.
Then to start at the beginning of the hearsay exceptions is to first reiterate what is not an exception, the lesser evil.
Rule 803 in Chapter 90 or Fed. R. Evid. 803
Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial -
Are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness:
(1) Present sense impression. – A statement describing or explaining an event of condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter (codified in 1975) (preceded by Houston Oxygen Co. v Davis, 139 Tex. 1 (1942); Emens v. Lehigh Valley R.R., 223 F. 810 (N/D/M/Y/ 1915))
Underlying Rule 803 (1) is the assumption that statements of perception substantially contemporaneous with an event are highly trustworthy because there is no memory problem, and little or no opportunity to fabricate. See: U.S. v. Ruiz 249 F. 3d. 643, 646-647 (7th Cir 2001) (substantial contemporaneity of event and statement minimizes unreliability due to defective recollection of conscious fabrication). Furthermore, there is also frequently a witness who had the same opportunity to perceive the event as the declarant, thereby a check on the veracity of the declarant. See: Robinson v. Shapiro, 484 F. Supp. 91,95 (S.D.N.Y. 1980)
Although it is said that Rule 803 does not require the declarant unavailable, there are a few conditional requirements to comply with, such as
TIME (should be contemporaneously occurring with event, however lapse may be justified, and corroboration is not a requirement).
PERCEPTION (although declarant must have perceived the event of condition, participation is not a requirement, giving a bystander the ability to utter hearsay.)
SUBJECT MATTER (“describing or explaining” an event or a condition. U.S. v. Ruiz, supra) (past events, other subjects are meant to be excluded) (evoked but nondescriptive statements are excluded) (the statement does not have to be directly related if it helps the jury to determine what happened, but it must still be contemporaneous.)
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
