.

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
Myself
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:36 pm

.

Postby Myself » Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:45 pm

.
Last edited by Myself on Sun Nov 24, 2013 11:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

thsmthcrmnl
Posts: 247
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 3:07 am

Re: Evidence nerds: would this get in?

Postby thsmthcrmnl » Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:53 pm

"You will be prosecuted" you almost certainly wouldn't need for the truth — that either did or did not happen. It could come in to show he thought it. As for the /self, that, depending on what happened and what type of case this is, could be a dying declaration or a present sense impression or an excited utterance or a state of mind/intent.

User avatar
gdane
Posts: 12384
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:41 pm

Re: Evidence nerds: would this get in?

Postby gdane » Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:03 am

Nah, wouldn't be dying declaration because the statement doesn't relate to the cause or circumstance of his impending death. Also, there was no impending death. Sure he was ready to kill himself, but he wasn't actually dying while he sent this text.

Not a present sense impression because he's not describing something he saw. Not an excited utterance for the same reason.

Could potentially be a statement of then existing mental condition to show the declarant's motive to commit a future event (kill himself). This follows from Hillmon.

As for Confrontation Clause issues, I don't believe there are any here. The statement is not testimonial because it was not made to police to be used in a future prosecution. Because there's not testimonial statement issues, no need to cross the Declarant about this statement.

You could also try 807. That seems to work a lot of the times.

What do you think you could use this text for anyway? To prove that D extorted the declarant?
Last edited by gdane on Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tom Joad
Posts: 4542
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:56 pm

Re: Evidence nerds: would this get in?

Postby Tom Joad » Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:05 am

gdane wrote:Could potentially be a statement of then existing mental condition to show the declarant's motive to commit a future event (kill himself). This follows from Hillmon.

User avatar
DreamsInDigital
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: Evidence nerds: would this get in?

Postby DreamsInDigital » Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:15 am

Tom Joad wrote:
gdane wrote:Could potentially be a statement of then existing mental condition to show the declarant's motive to commit a future event (kill himself). This follows from Hillmon.


Hmm, I'm not sure this would fit under Hillmon. Is saying "killing myself now" the same as saying "I am planning on killing myself"?

Also, if they brought it in under this, it would really just be pretext because what they actually care about showing is an occurrence that CAUSED that state of mind (the blackmail). Therefore, I think it would be kept out (after doing the 403 balancing maybe?).

User avatar
gdane
Posts: 12384
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:41 pm

Re: Evidence nerds: would this get in?

Postby gdane » Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:50 am

DreamsInDigital wrote:
Tom Joad wrote:
gdane wrote:Could potentially be a statement of then existing mental condition to show the declarant's motive to commit a future event (kill himself). This follows from Hillmon.


Hmm, I'm not sure this would fit under Hillmon. Is saying "killing myself now" the same as saying "I am planning on killing myself"?

Also, if they brought it in under this, it would really just be pretext because what they actually care about showing is an occurrence that CAUSED that state of mind (the blackmail). Therefore, I think it would be kept out (after doing the 403 balancing maybe?).

You have a good point. This is what's great about evidence, you really never know the answer so you just try what you can and hope your judge is nice.

User avatar
Tom Joad
Posts: 4542
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:56 pm

Re: Evidence nerds: would this get in?

Postby Tom Joad » Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:51 am

T/F: Judges are influenced by PUA technique?

User avatar
gdane
Posts: 12384
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:41 pm

Re: Evidence nerds: would this get in?

Postby gdane » Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:52 am

Tom Joad wrote:T/F: Judges are influenced by PUA technique?

A smile goes a long way.

Myself
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:36 pm

Re: Evidence nerds: would this get in?

Postby Myself » Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:47 am

I don't think it would come in under dying declaration because it's not a homicide or civil case.

thsmthcrmnl
Posts: 247
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 3:07 am

Re: Evidence nerds: would this get in?

Postby thsmthcrmnl » Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:24 am

gdane wrote:Nah, wouldn't be dying declaration because the statement doesn't relate to the cause or circumstance of his impending death. Also, there was no impending death. Sure he was ready to kill himself, but he wasn't actually dying while he sent this text.

Not a present sense impression because he's not describing something he saw. Not an excited utterance for the same reason.


Seems the statement that you are killing yourself has to do with the circumstance of your death. Doesn't matter if he died, what matters is if he had a settled, hopeless expectation of death. I agree that present sense is less likely, but it's not implausible. He was, depending on what exactly happened, perceiving an event. Similarly, he could be excited by this event.

EDIT: And of course the DD stuff doesn't matter since it's not civil or homicide.

User avatar
gdane
Posts: 12384
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:41 pm

Re: Evidence nerds: would this get in?

Postby gdane » Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:09 pm

thsmthcrmnl wrote:Seems the statement that you are killing yourself has to do with the circumstance of your death. Doesn't matter if he died, what matters is if he had a settled, hopeless expectation of death. I agree that present sense is less likely, but it's not implausible. He was, depending on what exactly happened, perceiving an event. Similarly, he could be excited by this event.

EDIT: And of course the DD stuff doesn't matter since it's not civil or homicide.

The DD and excited utterance theories in this case are a bit of a stretch, but you never know.

I still think present mental state is the best shot. Although, I'm still unsure what it would even be used for. To show that the D's extortion "killed" V?

Myself
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:36 pm

Re: Evidence nerds: would this get in?

Postby Myself » Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:16 pm

gdane wrote:
thsmthcrmnl wrote:Seems the statement that you are killing yourself has to do with the circumstance of your death. Doesn't matter if he died, what matters is if he had a settled, hopeless expectation of death. I agree that present sense is less likely, but it's not implausible. He was, depending on what exactly happened, perceiving an event. Similarly, he could be excited by this event.

EDIT: And of course the DD stuff doesn't matter since it's not civil or homicide.

The DD and excited utterance theories in this case are a bit of a stretch, but you never know.

I still think present mental state is the best shot. Although, I'm still unsure what it would even be used for. To show that the D's extortion "killed" V?


How would you get in the second part of the statement in under present sense impression?

thsmthcrmnl
Posts: 247
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 3:07 am

Re: Evidence nerds: would this get in?

Postby thsmthcrmnl » Wed Mar 27, 2013 3:22 pm

You wouldn't. The second part can come in without being for the truth.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: heresthesitch and 6 guests