Dane-Zaa Oral History Summary

Dane-Zaa Oral History Summary
In "Dane–Zaa Oral History: Why It's Not Hearsay," Robin Ridington introduces an historical Canadian court case "in which oral history was
introduced." (Ridington 38) She "discusses evidence provided by elders, anthropologists, historians, and other experts" (Ridington 39) to demonstrate
why oral history is not hearsay. In addition, Ridington provides an in–depth analysis of "Dane–Zaa oral history in current legal opinion regarding the
admissibility of such evidence." (Ridington 39) Ridington argues that the usage of oral history in Canadian courts provides further insight into
little–known cases and therefore is considered legitimate evidence and not hearsay. As Ridington begins her article she starts by examining the rivalry
between... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In 2008 she began to produce a collection of oral histories "at the request of the Doig River First nations chief and council." (Ridington 44) The
outcome of her research produced the manuscript "Where happiness Dwells: A History of the Dane–Zaa First Nations." (Ridington 44) Ridington
shares one of the stories she collected from a "Doig elder Aku in 1966." (Ridington 44) The stories protagonist is a direct ancestor of the Diog
community. It tells of a individual named Duuk'isachin and the "power of his vision quest" (Ridington 45) to save his village. The story takes place
in a valley located near a river surrounded by mountains, a close description to the "Finlay River and Rocky Mountain Trench." (Ridington 45)
Ridington points out that it is not only an important story to the Diog people but also for historians as it places their ancestors in the Rocky Mountain
Trench before western contact. The "oral history accounts of Duuk'isachin's life provide a Dane–Zaa perspective on the early years of the Fur trade."
(Ridington 46) Dane–Zaa oral histories provide a full of detail description of past events, unlike written documents that have pieces of the story missing.
Ridington concludes with arguing that oral history is an authentic account of past events and is not
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Effectiveness Of The Criminal Evidence Act 2003
The Criminal Evidence Act 1965 was no more than an attempt to fill in the gap and resolve the problem posed by Myer v DPP. The act rendered
certain records of a trade or business admissible. In practice, the Criminal Evidence Act 1965 gave rise to a number of problems of its own, which were
never solved satisfactorily. The 1965 Act was replaced by the hearsay provisions of thePolice and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which, in turn, were
replaced by those of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and 2003.
The Law Reform Committee and Criminal Law Revision Committee provided a number of reports on hearsay reform. The Criminal Justice Act 2003
introduced significant reforms to the hearsay rule, implementing, though not entirely, the report by the Law Commission in Evidence in Criminal ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In essence they comprise evidence from a witness that is unavailable through reasons of death, illness, being outside the UK, being impossible to
find and being prevented from giving evidence, or continuing to give evidence, through fear. In addition, business records can be admitted to prove
their contents, subject to the records being compiled by those with a duty to record the information, created in the course of the business and
originating from a person with personal knowledge of the matters set out. "The CJA 2003 provides four main safeguards against unfair use of
hearsay evidence. These are (1) If witness capability is questioned, it must be shown on the balance of probabilities that the witness is capable. (2)
Courts must allow evidence undermining an absent witness' credibility or showing inconsistency in statements. (3) A judge must order acquittal or
retrial if unconvinced by a case based wholly or partly on hearsay. (4) Hearsay evidence can be excluded if its admission would waste time when
viewed against its

Thomas V Floyd Case Study
"'Under this statute, the reviewing court shall determine only: (1) the legality of the decision and (2) whether there was substantial evidence from
the record as a whole to support the decision.'" Thomas v. Dep't of Labor, Licensing, & Regulation, 170 Md. App. 650, 657 (2006) (quoting Dep't of
Labor, Licensing, & Regulation v. Hinder, 349 Md. 71, 77–78 (1998)). Moreover, "[w]e 'may not reject a decision of the Board supported by
substantial evidence unless that decision is wrong as a matter of law.'" Thomas, supra, 170 Md. App. at 658 (quoting Hernandez v. Dep't of Labor,
Licensing, & Regulation, 122 Md. App. 19, 23 (1998)). DISCUSSION In the case sub judice, Floyd avers the Board impermissibly considered hearsay
evidence when rendering

Hearsay Situation
2.3Hearsay Mill We will perhaps eventually ruin our professional status if we get trapped up in mongering rumor and gossip (Anonymous, 1995).
We may harm our career and also the organization's future (Anonymous, 1995). As an advice, we shall never expose private and confidential
information, besides preventing from contradicting or agreeing any hearsays (Anonymous, 1995). However, Selinger (2008) argues this point of view
by postulating that we need to find out our reputation and the things people talk on us. The colleagues will involve in gossips or words of mouth even
though we do not, thus the hearsay will probably turn to misperceptions that will harm us (Selinger, 2008). This author also remarks that we shall find
out a specific person whose is in contradiction of us and our plans and developments.... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
B is the new staff at the company where Mrs. A is working for. Usually the new member of the organization will undergo the orientation and
recognition process on the first and second days or perhaps a week. This are to get to know all members of the organization, the roles and
responsibilities of them as per determined by the line of authority or so called the Organizational Chart, and relate these with the job scope of the
new staff. Ms. B has heard many rumors about Mrs. A. Those rumors are obviously to sabotage and ruin the reputation of Mrs. A as the most
successful and brilliant staff. Ms. B as the new staff of the company has found this as a culture shock as she is new in the field of production because
before this she is working in food and beverage (F&B) and also retail goods field. She has worked as Restaurant Servant, Sales Promoter and Cashier.
At this production–based company, she has assigned as a Sales Coordinator and this is the first time she is being exposed to the new world, new
working atmosphere, which is in the office environment and unfortunately she has to deal with office politics since she need to work with many

Essay On Hugg Jackson Trial
Evidence Trial Report On Thursday, July 23, 2015, I attended a trial at the First Judicial Circuit for the State of Florida. This trial was held in the
M C Blanchard Judicial Building in Escambia County. The judge presiding over the trial was the Honorable Linda Nobles, who is also the Chief
Judge for the First Judicial Circuit. The prosecuting attorney was Assistant State Attorney (ASA) Tom Williams. The attorney for the defense was
Public Defender (PD) Melissa Scarbrough. In this case, State of Florida v. Craig Jackson, the plaintiff is the State of Florida and the defendant is
Craig Jackson. The defendant in this case was facing multiple criminal felony charges including burglary of an unoccupied dwelling, grand theft, two
counts of dealing in stolen property, and two counts of false ownership for pawned items. Originally, the grand theft charge was supposed to be for the
value of $10,000 or more but less than $20,000. However after the state rested, the... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Before the trial even started, the entire court house was evacuated due to the fire alarm going off. After the building was cleared, we were allowed
back in and returned to normal operations. I stayed for half a day of the trial in this case. My first initial observations were that the lawyers from
both sides were rather friendly with each other and talked as friends. I also noticed a difference in the way the lawyers performed during the trial.
ASA Williams was very calm and collected, very well versed, and did not appear to react in any negative manner when the defense made an
objection. In my opinion, PD Scarbrough did a mediocre job during this trial. She appeared to be nervous when she spoke to the judge or the jury, and
also when the prosecution made any objection she appeared to get flustered rather quickly. In my opinion, the judge handled the trial extremely well
and I feel that she ruled correctly when she made her

Advantages Of Confession To A Confession
Confession to a Magistrate Confession : A Special Category of Hearsay The main reason for excluding hearsay from evidence is that its veracity
cannot be vouched for sense the person who had made the statement would not be available in the court for cross–examination. The rule cannot be
strictly invoked in case of confessions because here the maker of the statement is the accused himself who is a party to the proceedings. He obviously
cannot cross–examine himself but can certainly, put forth a defence either denying 22 that he made such a statement or explaining away the same as
having been made under any pressure of influence. If in a criminal proceeding against C, A deposes in the court that B told him that C committed a
crime and if B is... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This statement if goes unchallenged or is found to be true despite challenge, has much more, than simple hearsay. This is not to say that admission
of confessions made prior to beginning of the trial is totally free from danger of misuse. In fact the position is the other way round. What is meant
here is that it is certainly at a higher pedestal that usual hearsay evidence. If it is to have been voluntarily made, it is supposed to be admissible in
evidence and then, if found true, can from the sole basis of conviction of the accused. 1.12 Admissibility of Confessions Whether confessions are
considered to be exceptions to the rule against hearsay or as not at all violative of the said rule (as by Wigmore), they are generally considered
admissible in evidence on the presumption that no person will make a statement against his interest unless it be true. In the Indian Evidence Act there
is no separate provision specifically making them admissible. However, they are relevant in criminal trials as a species of Admission against the
interest of the maker by virtue of Section 21 of the Act. This rule of inclusion is a universally accepted one and therefore, poses no difficulty. 1.13 The
Rule of Exclusion However, all

Essay On Hearsay
Is this testimony barred by the hearsay rule? Hearsay Hearsay is a statement, other than the one made by the declarant testifying the court, offered in
evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Here, the FRE hearsay exception applies to the statement offered for the purpose of identifying a
person who was seen. The rule provides that out–of–court statements offered for identifications are not barred as they are generally preferred to
in–court identifications. Due to the less time lapse since the event with respect to out–of–court identifications, these identifications are believed to be
more reliable and trustworthy than the in–court identifications. Because it is only natural that the witness's memory fades as time passes,... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
Here, the primary purpose of the statement is to prosecute the defendant because the customer picked the defendant as a suspect out of the lineup with
the law enforcement officer present, presumably at the police station. There is no indication that the statement was being made during the ongoing
emergency. The customer's identification statement was recorded as part of the police investigation conducted on their premises. Therefore, it is
testimonial and falls within the Confrontation Clause protection. The identification was offered to prosecute the defendant. Accordingly, the clause
protects the accused's rights for an opportunity for effective cross–examination. However, it does not guarantee the accused to actually have one. While
the customer is unavailable at the trial for the defendant to be confronted with, the police officer who was present at the time of the identification will
testify, and his testimony is deemed to be highly reliable. In addition, the defense attorney can be given an opportunity to effectively cross–examine the
officer. Therefore, it does not violate the Sixth

Impeaching A Witnesses Testimony Analysis
Question 3: Discuss the functions of impeaching a witnesses' testimony and provide a real life example.
Answer: There are three functions of impeaching a witness's testimony (Gardner & Anderson, 2016). The first function is when the witnesses'
"credibility and qualifications to testify truthfully" are questioned because he or she has a criminal record (Gardner & Anderson, 2016, p. 127).
Evidence of a prior criminal record can only be brought up regarding the witness if the crime resulted in over one year in prison or was a crime related to
being dishonest or making a false statement (Gardner & Anderson, 2016). The second function of impeachment is to direct examine by bringing up any
past inconsistent statements made by the witness giving ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Out–of–court statements made by a victim of sexual assault and also has a disability, should be used as in court and have the same relaxed hearsay
rules as children (Gardner & Anderson, 2016). Disabled victims may not have a full grasp of what occurred or have a faulty memory, so I think it's
important for those individuals to give statements right away (Gardner & Anderson, 2016). The victims could also lack an efficient vocabulary and
have little knowledge like a child victim (Gardner & Anderson, 2016). I think there should be exceptions in child abuse cases because they are young,
and the statements made soon after the crime are probably the most reliable because if too much time passes after the crime the child could forget
what exactly happened or change their statements (Gardner & Anderson, 2016). I don't think children have motives or intentions to lie like an adult
would therefore children should be treated differently (Gardner & Anderson, 2016). The only bad part about exceptions to the hearsay rule for children
is they could be afraid to talk about what happened or make faulty statements to protect the offender, which shouldn't be admissible as evidence because
the defendant may be set

Hearsay Testimonies Case Summary
Testimonies from children who have experienced sexual assault can mean the difference between guilty and not guilty verdicts for the defendant. Often
times child victims are psychologically and even physically harmed jeopardizing their statements during the trial. There are a number of reasons for
children to be unable to give full accounts of what has occurred to them. For the purpose of protecting child victims and making sure they are heard the
courts have implemented innovations that make testifying less traumatic for children and allow for a more accurate description of the assault. Hearsay
testimonies are one of the innovations that have been shown to give child victims of sexual assault the chance to be fully heard. Victims directly... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The Effect of Hearsay Witness Age in a Child Sexual assault case" from the journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, authors Jonathan M.
Golding, Mary C Alexander, and Terri L. Stewart discuss how jurors view hearsay witnesses and if the age of the hearsay witness effects their
perception of the credibility of hearsay witness. A study was done with male and female participants, who read a fictional court case summary about a
sexual assault. The court case summary involved a 7, 16, or 25–year–old hearsay witness testifying on behalf of a 6 or 15–year–old victim. (Golding,
Alexander, Stewart, 1999) The case included the testimony of one primary witness, a hearsay witness, or a clinical psychologist. (Golding,
Alexander, Stewart, 1999) The authors begin by explaining the purpose of child hearsay testimonies and when hearsay witnesses are permitted, "a
child's words are hearsay if (a) the child's words were intended by the child to describe something that happened, (b) the child's words were spoken
prior to the court proceeding at which the words are repeated by someone who heard the child speak, and (c) the child's words are offered in court
to prove that what the child said actually happened." (Golding, Alexander, Stewart, 1999) hearsay isn't always permitted in order to keep the trail
from becoming unfair. The authors discuss different studies that have been done on hearsay testimonies and whether these studies have shown
hearsay to be reliable and warranted. One study that is described ended with jurors believing the hearsay witness just as much as the victim testifying
on her own behalf, the reasons for this, as the article explains, is "the mock jurors may have seen the hearsay witness as a 'surrogate who is simply
retelling the child's story'" (Golding, Alexander, Stewart, 1999) second jurors may feel the need to punish someone because sexual assault is seen as
such a horrible crime, third the hearsay

Case 4.1 Summarize The Federal Rules Of Evidence
DISCUSSION FORUM _ LESSON 4 1. Summarize the Federal Rules of Evidence in your own words. The Federal Rules of Evidence (F.R.E.)
enacted in 1975 and replaced prior centuries of various and sundry judge made caselaw. The F.R.E. is a complex set of statutes or penal codes
legislated with the intent of replacing unfair evidentiary submission and/or unnecessary expense and delay among the courts. The basic concept
behind the F.R.E. is the need for a consistent and predictable federal rule set that would promote fairness and ensure justice. These rules also allow a
measure of consistency and reliability applied in a civil or criminal matter. Indicate in your post whether the following pieces of evidence would be
admissible or... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Rules Evid. 608(b). However, if the witness denies the act, it may not be proved by other evidence unless the act to be proved has some relevance to
the case that is independent of its bearing on credibility. In some states, such as California, inquiry concerning prior bad acts that have not resulted in a
criminal conviction is not permitted to attack the credibility of a witness. Id. Questions concerning prior inconsistent statements are permitted under
federal law under the following conditions: 1. The questioner must have a good faith basis for believing that the inconsistent statement was made. 2.
The witness must be reminded of the time, place, and circumstances of the statement in a specific manner, although some states prohibit this. 3. In
federal court, if the statement is written, a copy of it must be provided to opposing counsel upon request. Fed. Rules Evid. 613. If the witness denies
making the inconsistent statement, the federal rules allow other evidence to be offered to prove it if: 1. The witness has first had an opportunity to
explain or deny it and counsel for the other parties have had an opportunity to ask about it, and 2. The statement is about a fact relevant to a material
issue in the case, other than credibility. Fed. Rules Evid. 613(b). As has been said, if the prior inconsistent statement is not relevant to a material issue
in the case, other than credibility, extrinsic proof of it is not permitted. In that case, the courts say that

What Is A Hearsay Statement?
A hearsay statement is admitted when there is also any admissible evidence that would have been admissible to attack the credibility of the maker of
the statement if they had given oral evidence. In R v Horncastle , the opposing party is enabled to put in evidence which he could have put in if the
witness had been present, but may also put in material which, if the witness had been present, could only have been asked of him in cross examination
in circumstances where his answers would have been final; this puts the challenger to that extent in a better position than if the witness is present, and
is designed to help to counterbalance the absence of cross–examination of the witness in person.
Section 125(1)
Section 125(1) , places a duty on the crown court to stop a case and either direct the jury trial to acquit the defendant, or discharge the jury, if the case
against him or her is wholly or partly an out of court statement that is so convincing that, considering its importance to the case, a conviction would be
unsafe.
Section 126 ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Section 126(1) provides a further discretion to exclude a hearsay statement if it would result in undue waste of time, substantially outweighs the case for
admitting it, taking account of the value of the evidence. The provision preserves both the existing common law power for the court to exclude
evidence where its prejudicial effect is out of proportion to its probative value and the discretion in Section 78 of PACE in relation to the admission of
unfair evidence

Song Hearsay Case
The definition of hearsay is "a statement a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement." FRE 801(c)(2). Song's
testimony is not hearsay because Song is a party opponent in this case. FRE 801(d)(2)(A). In this case, the testimony would be admissible under FRE
804(b)(1) because the Kensington cooking class instructor is not available to testify under FRE 804(a)(4). Also, the instructor gave statement directly
to Song at the cooking class in the same way that Song would be testifying at the trial. Moreover, the Defendant would be able to identify the instructor
for cross–examination purposes plus Song would be on trial for cross–examination of the testimony for the truth of the matter asserted. FRE 804(b)(1).
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
No reason appears why the instructor would have made such a statement unless it were true during the cooking class. Therefore, the statement is
admissible under FRE 804(b)(3) to prove that Song was not negligent in her actions. In this case, Song only lit the grill and walked away because
she recalled the Kensington cooking class instructor stating that she could lit the grill, let it get hot and leave the lid open to prep the food for as long
as it took to get the food ready. Therefore, the statement is admissible under FRE 804(a)(4) for the purposes of this

Case Study: Selena
Is the statement hearsay?
Any exceptions?
The prosecution argues that the confession of a person who is neither a witness nor a party to the case is totally inadmissible. Is this point sound?
Relevance
Whether or not Lucas's written confession is admissible as evidence depends on its relevance. To be admissible, evidence must be both logically and
legally relevant to the case.
Logical relevance
Logically relevant evidence is evidence having the tendency to prove that any fact of consequence in the case is more or less probable.
Here, the central issue is to determine whether or not Selena killed Lucas in self–defense. Selena seeks to elicit Lucas's written confession as to his
guilt in molesting Selena. It tends to prove the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It is admissible if a reasonable person in the declarant position would not declare such statement unless it was true.
Here, over the prosecution's objection to the admission of the written note signed by Lucas, the defense will argue that Lucas's written confession of
molestation of Selena is a self–inculpating statement and it is reliable because a reasonable person would not admit such guilt and puroduce a written
confession to implicate himself in a crime unless he knows it to be true. Moreover, Lucas's confession is supported by a corroborative evidence, Dr.
Swain's testimony, that he assisted Selena in her miscarriage, not appendectomy, and that he also falsified his medical record in accordance with this
fact.
Therefore, the court will likely admit Lucas's written statement on the ground of the declaration against interest.
Confrontation

Police Are Not Guilty
Within the courtroom many individuals have pleaded guilty because they know in the back of their minds that the chances of the jury believing them
over п»їa Law Enforcement officer is slim to none. seriously, who are you to likely to believe? A person in a prison jumpsuit or a professionally
dressed and groomed officer who swore to god to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. looking back with over a hundred of cases where officers lied,
do you really believe police are necessarily more trustworthy than any criminal? In my opinion I don't think so. It's not the fact that police are inclined
to confabulate, but I think they do have the incentive to lie. In todays society where numbers of those incarcerated is enormous, police should not be ...
For instance, a 3 year old may understand that battery is wrong. However, they might not understand that different types of sexual abuse is prohibited.
With that in mind, it becomes difficult to have a child testify when they're at the stage in their life where their brains are not fully developed which will
cause huge problems when you ask them to recall what happened at the time of the event. To be honest, children can sometimes be undeveloped that
their statements are equivalent to a bark of a bloodhound than a testimony of an adult witness. Now they have an "Objective witness test" that is used
for the testimonies of the children. This test evaluates a child's age, intelligence and experience in regards to their statement. I believe this could
recognize indicators that the reported conduct is wrongful or that the information provided is relevant to the criminal investigation.
Nonetheless, perjury and hearsay for children is a huge problem in the justice system. however, it's not the hearsay of children you hear about in
todays cases, but it's the trials dealing with the police officers whether or not they were in good standings in killing the individual. Furthermore, there
have been cases where perjury was a factor as

Rape Case Of A Crime Assault And Suspicion Of Rape
Rape Case Study In the case of a crime assault and suspicion of rape of a 14 year–old girl; Jones, Walsh and Bert were arrested. During the
investigation, the police obtain statement from a man name Bland providing additional information that suspect Jones was involved in three separate
assaults and rapes of juveniles over three days. The prosecution filed charges against Jones, Walsh and Bert for their involvement in the crime. The
suspect, Bert then hired an attorney to defend him and explains to his lawyer that he did not participate in any acts of raping these girls and that he
was only present one time with Jones and all he did was hit one of the girls. Bert also goes on to say that he can prove this because at the times the
other rapes are alleged to have occurred, he was with Mook, who is currently out of the country on a mountain climbing trip and will not return for 2
months. Bland also contacts the prosecutor's office and provides a written statement to the prosecutor that Walsh was not present during any of the
rapes. (Case Study, n.d.) When two or more defendants are jointly charged with the same offense, they must be tried jointly unless thejudge feels that in
the best interest that separate trials should be granted. A defendant 's motion for severance on the grounds that an out–of–court statement of a
codefendant referring to him is inadmissible against him. (Severance of Offenses & Defendants ,2016) Bert is filing a motion severance because of the

Kathleen Peterson Case Summary
Stacy and Kathleen Peterson were murdered by Drew Peterson but the fear they felt towards Drew tortured his murder trial and proved crucial in his
conviction of their murder. Their words came to life through three witnesses who conveyed Stacy's and Kathleen's remarks to jurors. Hearsay
evidence, or what one person tells another outside a courtroom setting. Kathleen once told her sister Sue Doman that Drew said, "he will kill her and
make it look like an accident". Months later Kathleen was found dead in her bathtub, medical examiners ruled it to be an accidental death at first but
then changed their ruling to it being a homicide once further investigation went into the case. Pastor Sherry took the stand for Stacy. Stacy told their
pastor that... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Some may argue that Stacy was under stress about her rocky relationship with drew and her financial stability if they were to get a divorce but that
was all statements drew made during interviews. Drew stated, "Stacy was under stress about our relationship she is out right now where she wants
to be having fun and living life care free." Drew also stated Stacy would do anything for money but Stacy divorce lawyer stated otherwise he told
the court Stacy never implied about money during their meetings but instead Stacy did tell him Drew killed Kathleen. Not once did Stacy tell any of
her close friends or relatives that she was stressed about money. Although Stacy aunt has made statements about how Stacy looked stressed when she
went to visit her, Stacy never told her aunt that she was stressed but she did tell her aunt she feared for her life. After Stacy's sister death her aunt
came to visit her. She recalls drew coming into the bedroom trying to make Stacy leave with him but instead Stacy pleaded for drew to leave her alone
and begged her aunt to sleep with her that night and not to leave her side. That's when Stacy aunt knew something was

Hearsay Evidence Case Study
Assignment 3.1: Rules of Evidence Introduction When entering evidence into court the traditional rule is that all hearsay evidence is deemed
inadmissible. One of the definitions of hearsay evidence can be explained as "evidence of a statement that was made by someone ... testifying at the
hearing ... offered to prove the truth of the matter stated." (as cited by Bartley, 2016). However, hearsay evidence may be admissible if it is within
one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. Within the case of R. v. Mapara [2005], the exception was hearing from a co–conspirator to confirm whether
or not the accused was a part of a conspiracy. This "permits the admission of out–of–court statements made by a co–conspirator against the accused"
(Canadian Criminal... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
An exception for co–conspiracy hearsay evidence exists "because conspirators are agents of each other, their acts in the agency are admissible
against each other" (Canadian Criminal Law Notebook, 2016). This type of evidence is usually considered circumstantial, which relies on an
inference to be drawn in order to make a conclusion. In order for the Crown to enter in this evidence they needed to prove three things: "1) there was
a conspiracy to commit an offence, 2) that the accused was member, 3) if the Crown proved their participation beyond a reasonable doubt" (Canadian
Criminal Law Notebook, 2016). By having a co–conspirator as a witness, their testimony attested to the accused committing a crime, that they were a
member, and their participation to the offence. With this testimony, the Crown was able to establish circumstantial indicators of reliability, which can
place the accused at the scene, as well as, the accused's men's rea to commit this offence. The other type of evidence which was admissible was a
wiretap. However, there was speculation on whether, or not this evidence was deemed admissible due to it being a three–way communication where
one of the individuals who called the accused was not allowed to be monitored. On the wiretap, it was confirmed the accused told the victim where to
meet. This helped the Crown establish suspicion that the accused was going to commit this offence. The judge established

Digital Evidence In The Courtroom
The concept I will take from this class that I thought was important, is the concept of admissibility. Admissibility defines how safe is the evidence
collected for trial and presented in front of a jury, and would the evidence be sound enough when making a decision in a case ( Casey, 2011, p.56).
How evidence is collected and analyze and stored are some of the factors that can have an influence on the evidence in a case. The course Book
"Digital Evidence and Computer Crime, Chapter 3, Digital Evidence in the Courtroom by Eugene Casey provides an example of a case that was
presented in Maryland. In 2007. The Magistrate was conveying over a case about the legitimacy of email. The Judge did not allow the emails because
in his view these are ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Bayesian network modeling is used to calculate the analysts' judgment on the certainty of evidence (Changwei, Singhal, & Wijesekera, 2014).
Bayesian probabilities ranks the submission of evidence from the highest to lowest degree of certainty;
(1) Beyond any doubt (100%)
(2) Beyond a reasonable doubt (>99%),
(3) Clear and convincing evidence (90–99%)
(4) Clear showing (80–90%)
(5) Substantial and credible evidence (67–80%)
(6) Preponderance of the evidence (50–67%)
(7) Clear indication (33–50%) (8) Probable cause: reasonable grounds for belief (10–33%) (9) Reasonable, articulable grounds for suspicious (1–10%)
(10) No reasonable grounds for suspicion (<1%)
This second method is a scientific or systematic approach method in analyzing evidence. However, this method is not use in a civil hearing or a court
of law. In conclusion, the course provided many concepts that can be used or introduce in a case–by–case analysis. The one point that is common
throughout the course readings is the extraction of fact from hearsay when determining the integrity of evidence presented in court or civil

Criminal Case Analysis
Throughout the 20th century, the importance of criminal cases increased. From sentencing the death penalty to creating a model code that almost all
of the states use, the decisions on criminal cases have changed constantly. Criminal cases are defined as a person committing a public wrong which is
considered an offense against the state. A criminal case can be settled with a plea bargain or through a trial, which is decided by certain jurisdictions.
There are many factors that go into deciding a criminal case, those being the crime that was committed, the evidence that is brought into the case, the
state the trial is being held in and whether the Judge dismisses the case or not. Many of the crucial criminal cases have shined a light on the important ...
The MPC was used in courts, and judges rely on it when handling substantive criminal law decisions. Some states even used MPC's model of
organization as a starting point. MPC remains an influence in the criminal laws for more than 2/3 of the states even if it's received a lot of criticism.
Another way that decisions on criminal cases have developed is with the Hearsay Rule. The Hearsay rule is defined as "a statement, other than one
made by the declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter at hand." (HR) The hearsay rule is not
allowed in several courts because it is questionable and could violate the 6th and 14th amendment. The only exceptions for allowing the hearsay rule
is in some cases if the declarant can testify, if the declarant can't testify or if the case involves child

Believing In Hearsay Research Paper
Avoid believing in hearsay and myth will have a far reaching impact on transforming our own behaviors (specially our character of believing in hearsay
and myth and looking for shortcut, magical cure instead of understanding and practicing Herbs Meditation.) and the present social health care system,
and those irresponsible media, medical, non–medical doctors, the food industry which are presently health hostile foe, into health friendly ally.
Any information and activity to misguide and enticing people to become more and more unnecessarily dependent on, and or become addict to
unnecessary and excess use of curing facilities, curing methods, health products plans devices be it proven or unproven, tantamount to health fraud
scams.
Health scammers

Davis V. Washington ( 2006.
Courts handle some pretty complex cases on a daily basis and rely on their previous knowledge of cases and on previous cases themselves to help
them decide cases. This is a practice that goes on across the land. Issues such as hearsay, best evidence, mental capacity, and many others come into
play while the judge is presiding over the case. Attorney's need to monitor these things as well, and need to object to certain things within the
allotted time frames. There needs to be set standards that are followed, and the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), State Rules of Evidence, and any
common law practices are out there to assist and direct proceedings on the do's and do not's of the trial process. These rules state what may be allowed
and what... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
When the police arrived, they were able to observe her shaken state, with fresh injuries on her forearm and her face. They also observed the frantic
state she was in while she was trying to gather belongings and her children so they could leave. The State charged Davis with a felony violation. The
State's only witnesses were the two police officers who responded to the 911 call. Both officers testified that McCottry exhibited injuries that appeared
to be recent, but neither officer could testify as to the cause of the injuries. McCottry presumably could have testified as to whether Davis was her
assailant, but she did not appear. Over Davis's objection, based on the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, the trial court admitted the
recording of her exchange with the 911 operator, and the jury convicted him (Davis v. Washington, 2012). Davis appealed to the Washington Court of
Appeals and then to the Supreme Court of Washington. It is here that we will focus time on how the decisions were made affirming Davis' conviction.
Davis appealed based on the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The judge at this time would need to look at the Sixth Amendment and
base the decision off of that information. The Sixth Amendment states: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and
public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall

Nontestimonial Hearsay Case Study
Q. What factors from Davis suggest that the evidence would be excluded by the Confrontation Clause? Hearsay Hearsay is a statement, other than the
one made by the declarant testifying in the court, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Confrontation Clause Under the Sixth
Amendment, Confrontation Clause provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses
against him. Here, we must first determine if the dialog during the 911 call in question establishes a testimonial or nontestimonial hearsay.
Nontestimonial hearsay will be subject to the FRE and falls outside of the scope of the Confrontational Clause protection. Therefore, the provision of
the Confrontation Clause would be inapplicable. Testimonial Statement Statements are testimonial when the circumstances indicate that there is no
ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish evidence for the... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It is apparent that the victim was making the phone call from the place of reasonable safety since the defendant had left the house. Also, she stated
that she was not physically hurt and didn't need any medical attention. Even though the operator told the victim that the police was on their way to
her place, she expressed her wish twice during the call to get the defendant "arrested." Her concerns for the defendant's return does not give rise to the
situation necessarily deemed to be an "emergency." These facts suggest that the purpose of her 911 call was not made in her effort to obtain the police
assistance urgently in resolving the danger that she might have been facing at the time of her call. It was rather to document the past event. It was for
the purpose of reporting the details of the assault that had occurred just a short moment ago and more particularly for establishing the evidence to arrest

Objection To Trial
DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION AND MOTION TO EXCLUDE
IMADMISSIBLE HEARSAY
Defendant, Preston G. Holmes, III and Matthew D. Jones, by and through counsel, Vernida R. Chaney and Eugene Gorokhov, and respectfully move
this Honorable Court to exclude inadmissible hearsay evidence that the government may seek to introduce at trial. Specifically, the defendants move to
exclude the records and contents thereof (1) U–Haul, (2) Sharifa Shuler's cellphone, (3) automatic license plate reader, and (4) gun manufacturers.
The government, as the proponent of hearsay evidence offered pursuant to hearsay exception, has "the burden of proving that [the statement comes]
within [the] . . . exception"). Thus, a party offering a purported record under the Federal Rules bears the burden of proving that the record in question
falls within the exception. See Rule 803; United States v. Jefferson, No. 1:07cr209, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69593 (E.D. Va. Aug. 8, 2009).... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
WHEREFORE, defendants, through counsel, respectfully request this Honorable Court exclude inadmissible hearsay.
Respectfully submitted,
PRESTON HOLMES
By Counsel.
_____________/s/_______________Vernida R. Chaney, Esq. Virginia State Bar No. 72385
Chaney Law Firm PLLC
4120 Leonard Drive Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Phone: 703–879–6650Fax: 703–776–9008Email:vchaney@chaneylawfirm.com
Respectfully Submitted,
MATTHEW D. JONES
By: /s/ Eugene Gorokhov
Eugene V. Gorokhov, VSB # 73582
Attorney for Defendant
BURNHAM & GOROKHOV, PLLC
1424 K Street NW, Suite 500

Washington, DC

Aliens In Area 51 Essay
Most of us have heard about the mysterious Area 51 and the rumors of the Aliens and UFOs that are hidden within. However, there is not much
evidence to show that these rumors are true. On the other hand, there is a lot of evidence that shows that there are no aliens in Area 51. Before a
reader can understand this essay, they must know a little background about the subject. For a long time, what went on in Area 51 was kept top–secret.
This led to many people speculating that the government was hiding things such as aliens and crashed UFOs there. These speculations led to things
such as movies and TV shows being made on the subject. The creation of these led to more people learning about and believing in the rumors of Aliens
and other extraterrestrial beings in Area 51.... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
One example of physical evidence is the 'OXCART' spy plane, which had features that could easily allow it to be mistaken for a UFO. "The aircraft's
titanium body, moving as fast as a bullet, would reflect the sun's rays and make anyone think, UFO." Another example of physical evidence is the U–2
spy plane, which many features that could allow it to be mistaken as a UFO. "The reports of UFOs often came from pilots from commercial airliners
in the early evening hours, with the U–2 plane's silver wings reflecting the rays of the sun." The last example of physical evidence is the S–71
Blackbird, which could fly extremely high, causing it to be mistaken for a UFO. "Area 51, known among spooks as 'Paradise Ranch', became
headquarters for risky games of cold–war intrigue as the Americans surveilled its enemies and rivals from more than 60,000

Pros And Cons Of Hearsay Testimony
When a crime is committed, one of the most important evidences for convincing jurors to make the decision is witness evidence. Witnesses in crimes
have also been a crucial part on determining the final verdict. However, child witness testimony should not be allowed due to the harm that it inflicts
on children. The article between a rock and a hard place: Why hearsay testimony may be a necessary evil in child sexual abuse cases by Watters, T.,
Brineman, J., & Wright, S. compares the positive and negative of using hearsay testimony instead of child testimony. The authors argues that the
benefits outweighs the cost.
Personally, I agree with the author's argument of the pros outweighing the cons when it comes to hearsay testimony. The negatives to childwitness ...
For example, the child has to face with the defendant of the crime who may possibly have been guilty. In addition, the defense attorney will question
the child or even accused of the child on fabricating abuse (Watters, Brineman & Wright, 2007). Furthermore, the traumatization faced by the child
may cost psychological damages in the near future. In the study by Wolfman, M., Brown, D., & Jose, P. (2016), 27 trained child witness interviewers
are brought into the study as participants. Half of the participants works full time and the average experience is 5.2 years. The study found that
depending on the relationship with the defendant and the severity of the damaged caused to the child, the responses to the questions will be effected
due to increase in anxiety and intimidation (Wolfman, Brown & Jose, 2016). Since the child has to go through multiple interviews before trail such as
caretaker, police or social services, the risk may increase. The effect of multiple trails compared to single trails can lead to more negative effects on
mental health, children experience more

The Film, Inherit The Wind, By The Scopes Monkey Trial
This paper discusses how the film, Inherit The Wind, portrays the Scopes Monkey Trial. The film showed both sides of the argument fairly. It was
conveying a message that a person should try to understand and respect each opinion when arguing their own side. Three evidentiary issues of the
trial in the film will also be discussed. The three issues that are objected to in the film are an opinion question, hearsay, and relevance. The judge
sustained all three objections, saying that they were inadmissible. I agree with the judge 's ruling on the opinion question, but I do not agree with the
judge 's ruling on the hearsay and relevance objection. For each of these issues, there will be a discussion of the Federal Rule of Evidence that is
implicated, the judge's ruling on the issue, and whether or not the ruling was appropriate by comparing it to the Federal Rules of Evidence. Each issue
will be explained in detail with the context of the conversation to show how it happened in the film.
INHERIT THE WIND REFLECTION3
Inherit The Wind Reflection The film, Inherit The Wind, conveys a message that a person should try to understand and respect each opinion when
arguing their own side. It did not seem to show much bias, but instead made it seems like they wanted the viewers to see each side. The three issues
that are objected to in the film are an opinion question, hearsay, and relevance. Each issue will be analyzed with the Federal Rules of

The Existence Of Aliens In Area 51
Most of us have heard about the mysterious Area 51 and the rumors of the Aliens and UFOs that are hidden within. However, these rumors are not
true. There is evidence that shows that there are no extraterrestrial beings in Area 51. Before a reader can understand this essay, they must first know a
little background about the subject. In 1955, land was added to an existing grid of the AEC's Atomic Test Site. This land was namedArea 51. Over time,
things such as accommodations for personnel and a runway were added. For a long time, what went on in Area 51 was kept top–secret. This caused
many people to speculate that the government was hiding things such as aliens and crashed UFOs there. These speculations led to things such as
movies and TV ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
One example of hearsay evidence is Edward Price, a CIA spokesperson, who stated that there are no aliens in Area 51, and that the rumors are all
made up. "What readers won't find are any references to aliens or other conspiracy theories best left to the realm of science fiction." (America
Acknowledges Existence..., 2013).Another example of hearsay evidence is Chris Pocock, a British defence journalist, who stated that everything about
the U–2 program had to be kept top secret. "'The U–2 was absolutely top secret', Chris Pocock, a British defence journalist and author of histories of
the programme, told the BBC. 'They had to hide everything about it.'" (America Acknowledges Existence..., 2013).The final example of hearsay
evidence are Gregory Pedlow and Donald Welzenbach, authors of the book of the history of the U–2 program stated that it was thought to be
impossible for planes to fly as high as the U–2 did, which could explain the UFO sightings. "'At this time, no one believed manned flight was possible
above 60,000 feet, so no one expected to see an object so high in the sky.', note authors Gregory Pedlow and Donalds Welzenbach." (America
Acknowledges Existence...,

The US Federal Laws and Testimonial Privileges
Law The essence of testimonial privileges is to balance the search for truth with that of the unique character of privileged relationships. The US federal
laws offer spousal privileges in to persons on the basis that communication between spouses is confidential. This privilege protects against the
disclosure of contents of confidential communications between spouses during the course of their marriage. This privilege is applicable in both
criminal and civil cases. Either the witness–spouse or the party–spouse can invoke the spousal privilege to deter the other from testifying. The
attorney–client privilege, on the other hand, refers to a legal notion, which protects certain communications involving an attorney and his/ her client and
maintains these communications as confidential. The attorney–client privilege is among the oldest recognized privileges in the US and encourages
clients to make full and truthful disclosures to their attorneys without the prospect of their disclosures being used against them. This allows attorneys to
offer candid advice and sufficient representation. The self–incrimination privilege recognizes the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution by
protecting witnesses from being coerced into incriminating themselves. Under this privilege, a witness is allowed to plead the Fifth by refusing to
respond to questions if the response could be self incriminatory. This privilege is founded on the aspect of torture, which was used to extract information

What Is The Hearsay Rule?
What is the Hearsay Rule? The hearsay rule is based inherently on the concise definition of hearsay. In this regard, hearsay can be defined as any
statement other than that made by an individual in the process of testifying at a hearing or trial, which is offered for purposes of affording evidence of
truth pertaining to a particular matter. According to the Cornell University Law School (2014), the hearsay rue is the rule that prohibits out of court
statements from being admitted as evidence at a trial. B and large, the hearsay rule is motivated intrinsically by the understanding in the belief that
hearsay is unreliable. For example, if a witnessed stopped at a scene of a car accident and a survivor intimated to him or her that the driver caused the
accident, this statement cannot be admitted as evidence to prove the same. It is imperative to understand that the hearsay rule, according to the Cornell
University Law School, bars all such evidence, whether oral or written.
What is the Rationale behind the Hearsay Rule? To understand the rationale behind the hearsay rule is essentially to understand why hearsay is
inadmissible in court. According to Townshend (2010), the rationale for the inadmissibility of hearsay under the hearsay rule is the fact that such
evidence is unreliable. To this effect, Townshend (2010) continues to assert that the quality of such evidence is compounded by its remoteness, which
in essence deprives the party against whom it is tendered, the

911 Crime Evidence
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether 911 calls recorded from an unidentified woman during police investigation of the crime scene that led to the arrest of Jerkson can be
acceptable as present sense impression, an exception to the hearsay rule? If the 911 recordings is acceptable as present sense impression will the
Prosecution be able to introduce it at trial?
FACTS
At 4:30 a.m. Ali Frazier approached a group including Tito Jerkson, Billy Ashho and four other people at the corner of 175th Street and Monroe
Avenue. Jerkson whom despised Frazier pulled out an automatic rifle from his coat and shot Frazier. About two hours later, during police investigation
of the crime scene a series of 911 calls came from an unidentified woman who informed the operator ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The rational for the present sense impression exception for hearsay stem from the notion that statement is reliable because the contemporaneity of
the event observed and the hearsay statement describing it leaves no time for reflection. Thus, the likelihood of deliberate misrepresentation or
faulty recollection is eliminated. People v. Brown 80 N.Y.2d 729, 734, 610 N.E.2d 369, 594 N.Y.S.2d 696 (1993); People v. Vasquez 88 N.Y. 2d.
561, 575, 670 N.E.2d. 1328, N.Y.S.2d 697 (1996); People v. Melendez 296 A.D.2d 424, 426, 744 N.Y.S.2d 485 (App. Div. 2d Dept. 2002). In
People v. Semple the audio tape of the radio communication between the police officers during the police high speed chase provide no opportunity
for any of the officer to reflect and to fabricate the statement. People v. Semple 174 Misc.2d 879, 882, 666 N.Y.S.2d 900 (Sup. Ct. 2d Dept. 1997).
In People v. Melendez, the defendant made a 911 call shortly made after stabbing her boyfriend claiming that it was an accidental stabbing. The
Appellant Division deem that the defendant does not appear to have sufficient time to fabricate anything on the 911 tape. People v. Melendez 296
A.D.2d 242, 244, 744 N.Y.S.2d 485 (App. Div. 2d Dept. 2002). In Jerkson case following the reasoning from People v. Semple and People v.
Melendez when the unidentified woman saw that the police was apprehending the wrong man she dialed 911 to inform the police

criminal eviedence Essay
Criminal Evidence
Student's Name
Institutional Affiliation
Criminal Evidence
Hearsay is not confined to oral statements or writings. Nonverbal conduct that is the equivalent of a verbal statement can be hearsay. All courts agree
that conduct intended as a substitute for words is within the hearsay prohibition when offered to prove the truth of the intended assertion. Assertive
conduct of this type would include physical gestures such as sign language, affirmative nods, or communicative motions in answer to questions, or
identification of a person by pointing to him.
A related and more difficult question is presented when the actor – declarant does not intend his conduct to communicate anything. ... Show more
Instead, she just nodded head and pointed to the defendant. This action is a kind of non–verbal hearsay.
On cross–examination, Defense Counsel offers a prior statement given by Miss Maggie on the day in question, where Miss Maggie gave a statement
to the investigating police officers called to the college. In the statement offered by Defense Counsel, Miss Maggie told the police that she did not
clearly see who had made the statement about the presence of a bomb in the building referred to during Direct Examination. In this situation, readings
Miss Maggie also be regarded as hearsay. Obviously, Miss Maggie clearly did not see who made the statement, which the bomb planted in the school
building. She just could not admit that I heard this statement from a student and certainly can not say who it was really.
Especially good example can be considered hearsay when questioning Mr. Mickie. According to Mr. Mickie, Miss Maggie turned to him and told him
that she had just heard a student say that a bomb had been planted somewhere in the building. Mr. Mickie also testifies that when he asked Miss
Maggie which student said the bomb had been planted, she just stared wide–eyed at Mr. Mickie and slowly shook her head.
Analyzing data contention Miss Maggie should be noted that this is a hearsay. In one case, a verbal when it directly transfers the circumstances are
known. Otherwise, it was a non–verbal hearsay. The statement is rumored months ago that Maggie was

The, Legend, Lore, And Hearsay Essay
Over the course of a long and arduous journey to find a place to settle, the people found themselves through the journey. They found many things that
they liked, and they settled around the things that gave them the best opportunities for survival. Consequently, they created a system of belief that
got them through the long wait for land, and once they got it, they praised it. "In the course of that long migration they had come of age as a person.
After all, they had conceived a good idea of themselves; they had dared to image and determine who they were," (Momaday, 77). Here Momaday
addresses the migration of his ancestors. As a result, the people had been modified by their journey, and so finally they began to consider who they
were and what they were meant to become. "What remains is fragmentary: mythology, legend, lore, and hearsay––and of course the idea itself, as
crucial and complete as it ever was. That is the miracle," (Momaday, 77). In regards to his culture, Momday expresses his perception of the stories his
father once told him as a child. Indeed, he is now old enough to understand the myths, and the great legends that have shaped his culture and living
environment. "It is a whole journey, intricate with motion and meaning; and it is made with the whole memory, that experience of the mind which is
legendary as well as historical, personal as well as cultural," (Momaday, 87). The journey made the legends being told more legendary. His people
crafted a culture

The Jurors On Disregard Inadmissible Evidence
Many experimenters have been interested in figuring out how well jurors can disregard inadmissible evidence in the courtroom. They want to know
exactly when and what type of evidence can be omitted while in trial. Werner, Kagehiro, and Strube (1982) tested participants looking for authoritarians
that would have had the anti–defendant bias. Authoritarians are more likely to be unable to disregard inadmissible evidence because have a bias
against the defendant from the start. Acting like mock jurors, they all read summaries of a trial that held six pieces of circumstantial evidence
presented by the prosecution. An incriminating or exonerating wiretap evidence was added as a seventh item for some conditions. The evidence, ruled
either inadmissible or admissible, tested the participants ability to disregard the evidence when declaring a verdict. They were randomly assigned to a
condition in a between subjects design that was a 2 (admissibility or inadmissibility of the wiretap evidence) X 2 (incriminating or exonerating wiretap
evidence). They were asked to estimate the probability of the defendant's guilt and either acquit or convict the defendant. The experimenters used the
Mitchell–Bryne Authoritarian Scale to see how authoritarian they were. They found that authoritarians were more likely to convict even when the
judge ruled the evidence inadmissible if it was incriminating but they would not acquit when the evidence was exonerating. This shows that
authoritarians are biased

Bargo's Identification Evidence Analysis
The first grounds for an appeal, in regards to Arika's testimony, is that identification evidence of Bargo at [20] was wrongly admitted. Except as
otherwise provided in the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) (EA), in order for evidence to be admissible, evidence must be relevant. Evidence will be
considered relevant in a proceeding, if that evidence when accepted, could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact
in issue in the proceeding. The facts in issues are the elements of the crime with which the defendant is being charged. Identification evidence from a
witness is made up of the witness asserting that the accused is the person the witness heard, saw, or smelt perpetrating the crime. In the present case,
Arika's testimony would be classified as identification evidence, as she asserted that Bargo was the person who she had seen rape her.
However, if identification evidence has been admitted, the trial judge is required to give an identification warning to the jury, that there is a special
need for caution before accepting identification evidence; and of the reasons for that need for caution. Section 114 also sets out a general rule, that
visual identification evidence adduced by the prosecution is inadmissible, unless the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Dr Monkhouse's report and email will come under the definition of a document, as a document includes any record of information and includes
anything in which things are written, printed or inscribed'. Dr Monkhouse's report, would be able to be tendered, as it forms part of the records of or
kept by a business; with a business including the work of hospitals. In the present case, the report has not been authenticated, as the court can not be
sure, that the report is in fact Dr Monkhouse's, without her

Floyd Case Summary
In the case sub judice, the County introduced seventeen pieces of evidence to be relied upon by the Board when rendering its decision. Floyd failed
to object to the introduction of any of the evidence entered against him so as to give the Board an opportunity decide upon his objections in the first
instance. The failure to adequately preserve these issues impairs out ability to assess the merits of Floyd's arguments with the benefit of a developed
record. We, therefore, hold that Floyd's objections to the hearsay evidence admitted against him were not adequately preserved for judicial review.
Assuming, arguendo, the questions here were preserved, for the reasons stated below we hold the admission of the evidence against Floyd did not
deny his procedural due process rights. B. Admission of Hearsay... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Accordingly, while hearsay statements are generally inadmissable in a judicial proceeding, hearsay statements are "not necessarily inadmissible in
an administrative proceeding." Travers v. Balt. Police Dep't, 115 Md. App. 395, 408 (1997) (citing Md. Dep't of Human Res. v. Bo Peep Day Nursery,
317 Md. 573, 595 (1989)). Indeed, if hearsay statements are sufficiently credible and probative, they may even form the sole basis for the agency's
finding. Travers, supra, 115 Md. App. at 411–13; Kade v. Hickey Sch., 80 Md. App. 721, 725

Legal Case Analysis Essay
Legal Case Analysis
1.In this matter I am asked to advise those instructing me as to whether the prosecution can adduce evidence of a written statement of a witness
unwilling to testify at trial and secondly how her evidence might be presented if she decides to give evidence at trial.
2.I understand that Chrissie lives within close proximity to the scene of the crime and is in fact a 'next door neighbour'.
3.Anterior to Chrissie's involvement, the victim, Bella, was attacked in her bedroom by an intruder wearing a balaclava. The intruder broke into the
house through the kitchen window and repeatedly stabbed her with a 'large knife'.
4.Bella did not see the attacker's face, but perhaps by serendipity, Chrissie caught a ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
As Lord Normand stated in Teper : "The rule against the admission of hearsay is fundamental... The truthfulness and accuracy of the witness whose
words are spoken by another person cannot be tested by cross–examination, and the light which his demeanour would throw upon his testimony is lost."
10.This rule is not inflexible. As Heffernan explained: "Notwithstanding its merit in excluding unreliable evidence and enhancing adjudication, the rule
against hearsay suffers from the disadvantage that it is overly broad in its application. Because the rule can and does lead to the exclusion of probative
evidence, it has been constrained over the years in the UK and Ireland by numerous common law and statutory exceptions."
11.Tapper highlights some Common Law exceptions. For the purposes of brevity, these exceptions shall not be expatiated. These include evidence
relating to:
(a)Public Information
(b)Reputation: character and family matters
(c)Res gestae: statements relating to a relevant event and statements relating to a contemporaneous, relevant mental state
(d)Admissions & Confessions.
12.The statutory exceptions include the admission of written statements in s9 CJA 1967. These statements are admissible only if certain formalities
are adhered to such as providing signatures, a declaration of truth and serving a copy of the statements to the relevant

Racial Differences Between Caucasian Ancestry And...
Section 114(2) goes on to state "...and the identification was made without the person who made it having been intentionally influenced to identify the
defendant." The NSW Commissioner for Police published an applicable guideline for the Evidence Act, further clearing any ambiguities in particular
definitions. The correct procedure when conducting an identification parade is to use "six or more people of similar age, height and appearance as
the suspect." Eight men were present at the identification parade, but five of them were not of Caucasian descent. This refutes the application listed
above; that the people in the parade must be of similar appearance to the suspect. If the suspect's details were that he is of Caucasian background, the
identification parade should present 6 or more people of Caucasian descent. Although there were eight people present in the line up, due to the obvious
racial differences from the suspect's description, the parade technically only had three people from who Constable Mosman could choose. Furthermore,
in the legal recording between the accused and his brother, the accused states that the police officer that brought Constable Mosman in to the parade
was the same police officer that had interviewed him earlier. This point is an important one, as it establishes a possible prejudice regarding
identification. At this point, it can be concluded that section 114(2) has not been satisfied, whereby there is a chance the witness was prejudicially

The Hearay Rule: A Glossary Analysis
The Hearsay rule simply states that hearsay–or a statement that "the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial" which "a party offers
in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement"(Hails, 2014, p.246)–is not allowed to be used as evidence in court. This rule
exists because only testimony that was made under oath is considered sufficiently reliable (Hails, 2014). Furthermore, hearsay cannot be observed by the
jury or cross–examined. (Morgan, 1948)
Throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, the nature of juries changed, impacting the way the court system functioned. At first a group of people
assembled for their specific case–related knowledge, juries increasingly became chosen instead for their ability to make unbiased decisions. Thus, over
time these more modern juries came to decisions using only in–court testimonies. With this change came the danger of using hearsay as evidence, and
laws were put into effect to minimize this danger. At first, hearsay was given a certain value based on the circumstances of the statements, and later it
was given restricted admittance; finally, it was made altogether inadmissible with the Hearsay Rule, with only a limited number of exceptions.
(Morgan, 1948). ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
One exception to the rule is called the Spontaneous Statements or "Excited Utterances". This is a statement in response to an event or situation, while
the defendant was excited or in duress (Hails, 2014, p.259). This is deemed trustworthy, because there is no time for the declarant to think about what
he or she is about to say. The statement is completely spontaneous, and it is likely the truth or how they really feel. For example, in the circumstance
where there was a bar fight and one man nearly beat another man to death and the officer is arresting the defendant, after the Miranda Rights were read,

Hospital Intake Case Study
1.The Hospital Intake Form issue
The trial court should admit Nellie's testimony concerning Pete's medical condition and hospital's intake form into evidence. The hospital intake form
qualifies, under Rule 803, qualifies as a hearsay exception.
The evidence is admissible for two reasons. First, under "Statement for Purpose of Medical Diagnoses, statement of present condition, even if is made
not to a physician, is excluded from the hearsay rule. The purpose of this exception is to promote sincerity with doctors and to help to diagnose a
medical condition in order to provide treatments. Pete let Nellie know that he is in pain exactly for this purpose. Therefore, Pete's statement that he is
in pain is not hearsay and should be admitted into evidence
Secondly, under Business Records of Regularly Conducted Activities, the court should allow Pete's hospital records to be admitted into evidence. For
the business records to be admitted into evidence, the must be kept in the regular course of business, with the personal knowledge of the ... Show more
The hearsay is a statement made out of court, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. However, under rule 801(2) admissions of a party–
opponent, a statement offered against that party, falls under the exception from the hearsay rule. Here, the statement was made at the scene of the
accident where Erin told Pete that she was "in hurry to make a pizza delivery and that is why I ran the red light." Since the statement meets
requirements of "admission of a party–opponent", therefore, it is non–hearsay and should be admitted into evidence.
3.Pete's testimony about Donna's offer to pay medical bills
The trial court, under rule 409, should not admit Pete's testimony stating that Donna, during her visit to the hospital, offered to pay his medical

Dane-Zaa Oral History Summary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Alyssa Schulte

More from Alyssa Schulte (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Dane-Zaa Oral History Summary