Popular in Evidence & Legal Reasoning
Popular in Department
This 3 page Class Notes was uploaded by Hannah Notetaker on Thursday August 25, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to POLI 3380 at Auburn University taught by Dr. Clifton Perry in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 15 views.
Reviews for Evidence 8/25
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 08/25/16
8/25/16 Rule 605 - judges as witnesses certain people are statutorily incompetent - meaning they cannot take the stand and one does not have to object, they simply are not allowed - for example, a judge cannot act as a witness if someone tried to put someone who was like this on the stand it would be plain error Rule 606 - jurors as witnesses jurors competence as a witness - if the juror is going to testify they must give the other side an opportunity to object outside the court where the rest of the jury is not present B - during an inquiry into the validity of an inditement, a juror cannot testify about statements made during deliberations, mental processes, or comments about what the other jurors have said about the case; three cases where this does not count: prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jurors attention, they may testify about outside information that was improperly brought to their attention, or mistakes made in entering the verdict so can an attorney testify? if it is the skill or expense of the attorney’s work for the client they can or if **missed the ﬁrst example of when an attorney is allowed to testify** Tanner vs. US: during breaks jurors were smoking and drinking etc and the defendant was convicted of fraud. One of the jurors informed the defense attorney of what had happened so they called for a mistrial but it did not happen because this was not named: “external information” so because it was internal (their behavior) the motion was not allowed because of 606D — you cannot go back and question jurors Wager v. Shavers (2014) accident in Rapid City during a motorcycle rally and the lost his left leg - he claimed the driver had cut in front of him but the car said the motorcycle cut him oﬀ so it went to trial Regina Whipple has a daughter and during questing the juror she was asked if she could be fair in regards to an opinion of an accident - she says yes but she did not disclose until she was a juror and the jury was contemplating the verdict that her daughter was in an accident that killed a man and if she was guilty she would have been in jail her whole life another jury tells the other side of the case what had happened and they called for a new trial because if she had disclosed this information in the questioning she would have been struck from the jury and her being there could have changed the verdict the judge said (using 606B) that it has to do with the validity of the verdict not the verdict itself Competence Review: must take an oath must have personal experience must have memory must have communicative skills to tell about the personal experience that you remember Exhumed Memories: some people think that they can go back through unconscious mind and bring about memories that they believe actually happened when under hypnosis or with the inﬂuence outside pressures, so does this constitute as memory? Admissibility: some states act in the way that the court is more likely to admit evidence and then have people dilute it; or decide how much weight you want to give these “exhumed memories" Inadmissible: other states say why even bother bringing it in, its inadmissible; determining if it is exhumed by how valid it sounds Admissible with Conditions: other states say it is conditional; meaning use another hypnosis and do not use leading questions - meaning allow for it to be individual, and let it be reviewed before the testimony is presented as evidence Reliability: the fourth option would be to use a balance by asking how reliable the exhumed memory is and balance that against its value to the case to decide if it is admissible Shirley case the testimony is an exhumed memory and the witness goes to a hypnotist to try to ﬁll in the gaps the defendant moves to exclude the testimony and this was denied they appealed on the basis of it was inadmissible because they believe exhumed memories happen when you are not competent they say that no state would allow a defendant in a criminal case to put in an exhumed memory as evidence - California ruled on this and said no hypnosis to get memories if you strike the testimony would it aﬀect the case at all? answer no - this type of remark is called a dictum - remarks that have nothing to do with the case so they are struck or ignored Rock case Defendant charged with man slaughter D wants to go under hypnosis and get exhumed memories to help defend himself - Arkansas, like Califorina, subscribes to the disallowance of the induced memories because they think it is too self serving they appealed to the US Supreme Court and asked, can you do this? They used Washington vs. Texas a principle is being charged and they allow for the agent to testify them - they said this is allowed because if someone wants to testify for you then allow them but let reliability be high meaning that then the court decides after how much weight the testimony holds Chambers vs. Mississippi - Voucher Rule - if you put a witness on stand you cannot impeach him all of these cases show that you cannot have a deﬁnite rule about whether exhumed memories can be in court or out of court — you have to use conditional or reliability situations to decide whether they are acceptable or unacceptable Rule 602: need for personal knowledge a witness may testify only if evidence is introduced suﬃcient to support a ﬁnding that a witness has personal knowledge of the matter - meaning if evidence is introduced and the parties prove that the witness has knowledge about it then the said jury can testify about it; lay the foundation for the personal experience by saying: where were you on said date? etc. present the situation with the questions then they can testify to the situation this evidence that proves personal knowledge can consist of the witness’s own testimony
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'