Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In United States law, a declaration (or statement) against interest is an exception to the rule on hearsay in which a person's statement may be used, where generally the content of the statement is so prejudicial to the person making it that they would not have made the statement unless they believed the statement was true. For example, if a ...
Hearsay exceptions do not mandate that a trier of fact (the jury or, in non-jury trials, the judge) accept the hearsay statement as being true. Hearsay exceptions mean only that the trier of fact will be informed of the hearsay statement and will be allowed to consider it when deciding on a verdict in the case. The jury is free to disregard a ...
In United States law, a statement against penal interest is a statement that puts the statement-maker at risk of prosecution.It is the criminal equivalent of a statement against interest, a statement a person would not normally make, which would put them in a disadvantaged position that they would have had if they had not made the statement in the first place.
The word "admission" connotes that the statement must be harmful. However, the party admission exemption does not in any way require that the admission be a representation against the party's interest – a "statement against interest." "Statements against interest" made by other witnesses are sometimes admissible over the hearsay exception ...
"Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." [1] Per Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(a), a statement made by a defendant is admissible as evidence only if it is inculpatory; exculpatory statements made to an investigator are hearsay and therefore may not be admitted as ...
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 defines hearsay as statements "not made in oral evidence in the proceedings" being used "as evidence of any matter stated". [17] If the statements are being used for purposes other than serving "as evidence of any matter stated", they are not covered by the definition of hearsay in the 2003 Act. [18]
But Washington invoked a hearsay exception for statements against penal interest. [ 2 ] The defense counsel objected to the admission of the wife's statement, on the ground that Mr. Crawford would be unable to confront (i.e., cross-examine) Mrs. Crawford on her statement without waiving spousal privilege, and that this would be a violation of ...
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States and written by Justice Antonin Scalia that established the test used to determine whether a hearsay statement is "testimonial" for Confrontation Clause purposes. Two years prior to its publication, in Crawford v.