Two evidence Q's (Testimonial Evid&Speakers Knowledge) Forum

[Impishee]

Two questions:

1. What are the implications of this testimonial evidence thing? I'm trying to find an example if anyone has one...

"Constitutional issues: Even if not inadmissible b/c of hearsay, the confrontation clause can make statement inadmissible against D in a criminal case. Testimonial statements are inadmissible unless the declarant is unavailable AND the D had an opportunity to cross the declarant when the statement was made."

2. Also, I have "Speaker's knowledge of facts" in nonhearsay for evidence on my leansheets. If anyone could shed some light on what this means, I would be insanely grateful.

[squiggle]

Under Confrontation Clause, you need to have a chance to confront your accuser IF the information is presented to accuse (i.e. testimonial). Think of it like hearsay v. admissible statement. The words in a statement are the hearsay v. admissible statement may be the same, but the reason the statement is being offered for changes the admissibility.

A statement (ex: call to 911) is nontestimonial if the purpose is to aid in handling an ongoing emergency (ex: perpetrator still at large, kidnapped child, etc.). BUT if the statement (ex: police interrogation of a suspect) was for future criminal prosecution, it's testimonial.

This issue was tested on the MEE in 2013, and I learned it from doing old MEE essays.

I hope that helps!

[Impishee]

Under Confrontation Clause, you need to have a chance to confront your accuser IF the information is presented to accuse (i.e. testimonial). Think of it like hearsay v. admissible statement. The words in a statement are the hearsay v. admissible statement may be the same, but the reason the statement is being offered for changes the admissibility.

A statement (ex: call to 911) is nontestimonial if the purpose is to aid in handling an ongoing emergency (ex: perpetrator still at large, kidnapped child, etc.). BUT if the statement (ex: police interrogation of a suspect) was for future criminal prosecution, it's testimonial.

This issue was tested on the MEE in 2013, and I learned it from doing old MEE essays.

I hope that helps!

Awesome, thank you so much! Trying to fit this into my brain box without throwing off my understanding of everything. Do you happen to know the speaker's knowledge question as well? THAT's one that I'm sort of worried about jiving with my understanding of things. I'm wondering if it just means that a speaker can generally testify to their knowledge of facts (not necessarily out of court statements, but just facts) without it being hearsay.

[squiggle]

Under Confrontation Clause, you need to have a chance to confront your accuser IF the information is presented to accuse (i.e. testimonial). Think of it like hearsay v. admissible statement. The words in a statement are the hearsay v. admissible statement may be the same, but the reason the statement is being offered for changes the admissibility.

A statement (ex: call to 911) is nontestimonial if the purpose is to aid in handling an ongoing emergency (ex: perpetrator still at large, kidnapped child, etc.). BUT if the statement (ex: police interrogation of a suspect) was for future criminal prosecution, it's testimonial.

This issue was tested on the MEE in 2013, and I learned it from doing old MEE essays.

I hope that helps!

Awesome, thank you so much! Trying to fit this into my brain box without throwing off my understanding of everything. Do you happen to know the speaker's knowledge question as well? THAT's one that I'm sort of worried about jiving with my understanding of things. I'm wondering if it just means that a speaker can generally testify to their knowledge of facts (not necessarily out of court statements, but just facts) without it being hearsay.

The only relevant thing I can found in my outline is that one category of non-hearsay is statement being offered as "circumstantial evidence of D's relevant state of mind" that's not offered for truth (ex: knowledge). Not sure if that's what lean sheet is referring to or how exactly to apply it.

One more thing about testimonial/nontestimonial: these rules come from two Supreme Court cases (Crawford and Davis), if anyone needs more background or wants to cite to something in their answer.

[elendinel]

If I had to guess, the knowledge thing is saying that if you are using a statement as proof that a speaker knew something/believed he knew something, then the statement is not hearsay, because at that point you are proving what the speaker knew, and not that their statement is the truth.

I.e., say I'm on trial for Dennis' murder. The theory is I killed Dennis because he was about to try and kill me because he thought I was a snitch. Let's say I also tell someone "Dennis is trying to kill me." The prosecutor probably wouldn't bring up my statement to prove that Dennis was trying to kill me, so much as (s)he would probably do so to prove I killed Dennis because I thought/knew Dennis was out for my blood. My statement therefore wouldn't be hearsay, because it's being used to prove what I knew/believed at the time of the crime/my motives for killing Dennis, and not to prove that Dennis was actually trying to kill me.