A Federal Defender’s Guide to Confrontation Jessica Smith School of Government, UNC-Chapel Hill.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Chapter 8 Witnesses— Competency and Perjury.
Advertisements

“Holy #$%^ I Cannot Believe I did that” What NOT to overlook in trial How to do it better What NOT to overlook in trial How to do it better.
CVLS Hearsay Refresher Who Cares About Hearsay? A Four-Step Hearsay Formula Hearsay Exceptions Questions.
Trial Procedures. Pleadings – papers filed with the beginning of a trial – establish the issues the court is being asked to decided Spell out allegations.
The Bill of Rights and the Criminal Trial Process.
Q UINCY COLLEGE Paralegal Studies Program Paralegal Studies Program Interviewing & Investigation Foundations of Investigating.
Criminal Justice 2011 Chapter 18: Preparation for Court Criminal Investigation The Art and the Science by Michael D. Lyman Copyright 2011.
Chapter 7: Evidence and Procedure Evidence: Proves/Disproves fact in issue Procedure: Rules of Court.
Hearsay and Its Exceptions
Jail Call Analysis 4 th Amdt – Waiver because of Consent (Banargent, Scheinman, Poyck) 4 th Amdt. – Society not ready to recognize prisoner’s expectation.
Briana Denney, Esq. of Newman & Denney P.C Briana Denney, Esq. of Newman & Denney P.C. E VIDENTIARY I SSUES R ELATING TO F ORENSIC R EPORTS.
Courtroom Roles and Responsibilities. OBJECTIVES The student will be able to: Identify career opportunities in the court systems. Examine the roles of.
PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS FRE 801(d) Non Hearsay by definition Rule 801(d)(1) Prior Statement by Witness is not hearsay If declarant testifies and.
CHAP. 3 : INTRODUCTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE P. JANICKE 2011.
The Roles of Judge and Jury Court controls legal rulings in the trial Court controls legal rulings in the trial Jury decides factual issues Jury decides.
CJ227 Criminal Procedure Welcome to our Seminar!!! (We will begin shortly) Tonight – Unit 4 (Chapter 9 – Pretrial Motions, Hearings and Pleas) (Chapter.
Criminal Evidence 7th Edition
Confrontation After Crawford v. Washington Jessica Smith, Institute of Government June, 2004.
Green Light? No violation if the declarant is subject to cross at trial within the meaning of Crawford Is the declarant “subject to cross at trial” if.
Confronting the Confrontation Objection: Crawford Update Jessica Smith School of Government, UNC-Chapel Hill October, 2006 © 2006 Click Here for Sound.
Criminal Law Update & Review NC Conference of Superior Court Judges November, 2004 Jessica Smith School of Government, UNC-Chapel Hill Click Here For Sound.
Hearsay Rule Lecture 6, 2014.
Criminal Law Update & Review NC Conference of Superior Court Judges November, 2004 Jessica Smith School of Government, UNC-Chapel Hill.
Crawford v. Washington US Supreme Court, March 2004 Implications for Elder Abuse Investigations Adapted from material presented June 30, 2004 by Sean Morgan.
CHAPTER X HEARSAY EVIDENCE. Hearsay Evidence Evidence of a statement that was made other than by the witness while testifying that is offered to prove.
Hearsay Exceptions Declarant Unavailable. Unlike FRE 803, FRE 804 provides exceptions where the Declarant Must be Unavailable to testify.
Confrontation & Experts Paul Giannelli Distinguished University Professor Case Western Reserve University.
Confrontation Clause The right to confront and cross exam your accusers.
 Judge  Prosecutor  Defense Attorney 2 Copyright Texas Education Agency (TEA)
Trial advocacy workshop
CONFRONTATION In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him….
Crawford v. Washington US Supreme Court, March 2004 Implications for Elder Abuse Prosecutions Adapted from material presented June 30, 2004 by Sean Morgan.
Chapter 20 Writing Reports, Preparing for and Presenting Cases in Court.
Unit 3 Seminar! K. Austin Zimmer Any question from Unit 2! Please make sure you have completed your Unit 1 & 2 Papers!
Basic Evidence and Trial Procedure. Opening Statement  Preview the evidence “The evidence will show”  Introduce theme  Briefly describe the issues,
The Trial Process and the Investigator as a Witness.
Professor Dr. Thomas Weigend The use of interrogation transcripts and of written declarations in the German criminal process.
CHAPTER 4, PART 3 OF 3 RULE 804: OUT-OF-COURT DECLARATIONS BY PERSONS WHO ARE NOW UNAVAILABLE Prof. Janicke 2015.
CHAP. 3 : INTRODUCTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE P. JANICKE 2008.
THE TRIAL IN CANADIAN COURTS – Part 3 RULES AND TYPES OF EVIDENCE LAW 12 MUNDY
Unit 6 The Trial: Players, Motions, Hearings, and Pleas Or I am getting my day in court.
Evidence in Court Holy Trinity Law Audrius Stonkus.
Crawford v. Washington US Supreme Court, March 2004 Implications for Courts NYC Elder Abuse Training Project.
1 PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE Learning Domain PURPOSE FOR THE RULES OF EVIDENCE Protect the jury from seeing or hearing evidence that is: (w/b p. 1-3)
Unavailability. What are the Six Categories Privilege 2.Intransigent 3.Forgetful 4.Death or Disability 5.Absence 6.Other things not.
Unit 6  What needs to be done this week SeminarSeminar QuizQuiz Discussion boardDiscussion board Unit 9 Analysis and ApplicationUnit 9 Analysis and Application.
ACOS 1, 2 Legal Aspects of Investigation The investigator and the legal system.
EVIDENCE ACT Law of evidence lay rules for the production of evidence in the court of law.
HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS THAT ARE LESS RELIABLE: RULE 804: DECLARATIONS BY PERSONS WHO ARE NOW UNAVAILABLE Prof. Janicke 2011.
CHAPTER 4, PART 3 OF 3 RULE 804: DECLARATIONS BY PERSONS WHO ARE NOW UNAVAILABLE Prof. Janicke 2014.
PROCEDURES IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, 8 th ed. Roberson, Wallace, and Stuckey PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ
Mock Trial Team Strategies and Formalities. Opening Statements 3 minutes Objective – Acquaint court with the case and outline what you are going to prove.
HEARSAY! BY MICHAEL JOHNSON. COMMON LAW DEFINITION “ An out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted”
CJ227: Criminal Procedure Unit 6 Seminar Mary K Cronin.
Outline of the U.S. and Arizona Criminal Justice Systems
CONFRONTATION ARKANSAS APRIL 2011 MIKE DENTON.
WHAT IS EVIDENCE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES DOCUMENTS
HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS THAT ARE LESS RELIABLE: RULE 804: DECLARATIONS BY PERSONS WHO ARE NOW UNAVAILABLE Prof. Janicke 2012.
Criminal Evidence Marjie Britz Chapter Ten: Hearsay
Hearsay Hector Brolo Evidence, Law 16 Spring 2017.
The Law Governing Identification Evidence
Crime Scene Processing 5th & 6th Amendments
ROBBERY VICTIM AND LINEUP PHOTOGRAPH
HEARSAY DEFINITIONS [RULE 801, PARED DOWN].
How Witnesses are Examined
Witnesses’ Roles in a Case
Civil Pretrial Practice
CHAP. 3 : INTRODUCTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
Alison Chandler Hearsay Exceptions Continued Unavailability Former testimony Dying Declarations Declarations against.
Hearsay Exceptions - Rules 803 and 804
Presentation transcript:

A Federal Defender’s Guide to Confrontation Jessica Smith School of Government, UNC-Chapel Hill

Evidence 2

3 32,700

Session Objective At the end of this session you will be able to: Understand & apply the new confrontation clause rules

5 Crawford Holding: “Testimonial” hearsay statements by declarants who do not testify at trial may not be admitted unless the declarant is unavailable and there has been a prior opportunity to cross examine.

8 Crawford Holding: “Testimonial” hearsay statements by declarants who do not testify at trial may not be admitted unless the declarant is unavailable and there has been a prior opportunity to cross examine.

V’s statements to 1st responding officers or 911 operator Child V’s statements to a family member, social worker, or doctor Forensic reports Autopsy reports Chemical analyst’s affidavit Chain of custody record

QUESTION: Government seeks to introduce D’s statements, made at the station house. Does Crawford apply?

Crawford does not apply to D’s own statements

Nor does it apply to D’s evidence

QUESTION: Excited utterances are always non- testimonial. True or False?

Crawford analysis is separate from hearsay analysis

Confrontation Clause Hoop (Crawford) Hearsay Hoop

Crawford Holding: “Testimonial” hearsay statements by declarants who do not testify at trial may not be admitted unless the declarant is unavailable and there has been a prior opportunity to cross examine.

What does it mean to “be subject to cross-examination at trial”?

QUESTION: Witness asserts privilege. Is Witness subject to cross- examination?

QUESTION: W experiences memory lapses. Is W subject to cross-examination?

What does it mean to “be subject to cross-examination at trial”? W who asserts privilege is not subject to cross-examination W who has memory lapse is

Is it testimonial? Crawford said: Includes statements by those who “bear testimony” against the accused Testimony = a solemn declaration used to establish or prove some fact

Is it testimonial? However, Crawford declined to comprehensively define the term

Is it testimonial? Police interrogation

Is it testimonial? Police interrogation -of suspects

Is it testimonial? Police interrogation -of suspects -of victims

Davis/Hammon Rule: (1) Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency.

Davis/Hammon Rule: (1) Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency.

Davis/Hammon Rule: (2) They are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no such ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.

Davis/Hammon Rule: (2) They are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no such ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.

Davis Holdings: (1) 911 call statements = nontestimonial V spoke about events as they were happening, not later V facing ongoing emergency Q&A necessary to resolve emergency (including ID of D) Formality lacking

Davis Holdings: (2) V’s statements to responding officers = testimonial Not much different from those in Crawford Interrogation was investigation of past conduct No ongoing emergency 2 nd questioning Was “formal enough”

Is it testimonial? Police interrogation - of suspects - of victims - of witnesses

QUESTION: Is a blood test report testimonial?

Is it testimonial? Police interrogation Forensic reports & affidavits

Is it testimonial? Police interrogation Forensic reports & affidavits Chain of custody evidence X Business records X Equipment maintenance records X Casual remark to an acquaintance

QUESTION: D threatened the witness. Does a Crawford exception apply?

QUESTION: Granny makes a statement while dying. Does a Crawford exception apply?

Crawford Exceptions: 1.Forfeiture by wrongdoing 2.Dying declarations

Crawford Exceptions: 1.Forfeiture by wrongdoing 2.Dying declarations

Crawford Exceptions: 2.Dying declarations

Unavailability & Prior Opportunity to Cross-Examine How does the Government establish unavailability?

QUESTION: Prosecutor tells judge what steps were taken to locate the W. Will that do it?

Unavailability & Prior Opportunity to Cross-Examine How does the Government establish unavailability? Need to show a good faith effort to obtain the witness’s presence at trial Government needs to put on evidence.

Unavailability & Prior Opportunity to Cross-Examine Prior Opportunity to cross-examine - Prior trial

Unavailability & Prior Opportunity to Cross-Examine Prior Opportunity to cross-examine - Prior trial - Pretrial deposition?

Substitute Analysts 61

Crawford Holding: “Testimonial” hearsay statements by declarants who do not testify at trial may not be admitted unless the declarant is unavailable and there has been a prior opportunity to cross examine.

“Faux Substitute”

X

“Real Substitute”

Williams v. Illinois (U.S.)

AFFIRMED

1.Not for the truth of the matter asserted 2.Non-testimonial because it wasn’t accusatory

1.Not for the truth of the matter asserted 2.Non-testimonial because it wasn’t accusatory

1.Non-testimonial because not formal 2.Rejects not for the truth approach

?

Session Objective At the end of this session you will be able to: Understand & apply the new confrontation clause rules