Rhode Island Supreme Court Has No Problem With Impeachment.

11 Sunday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Assault, Criminal Law, Evidence, Impeachment, Rhode Island Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Rhode Island Supreme Court Has No Problem With Impeachment.

Tags

Assault, Character Evidence, Colin Miller, Conviction, Evidence, EvidenceProf Blog, Impeachment, Motion in Limine, Police, Resisting Arrest, Rhode Island Supreme Court

Impeachable?: Supreme Court of Rhode Island Finds No Problem With Impeachment Via Old, Similar Conviction, Editor: Colin Miller, EvidenceProf Blog

http://bit.ly/1oEpyhi

[S]o, assume that a defendant is charged with resisting arrest, and the trial is held in 2012. Also, assume that the defendant has the following convictions: assault on a police officer (1987), a 1982 assault on a police officer (1982), and simple assault (1982). If the defendant files a motion in limine, seeking to preclude the prosecution from introducing evidence of these convictions into evidence, how should the court rule? . . . .

A New Theory of Hearsay – Part 1.

11 Tuesday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Admissibility, Evidence, Federal Rules of Evidence, Hearsay, Trial Tips and Techniques, Witnesses

≈ Comments Off on A New Theory of Hearsay – Part 1.

Tags

Character Evidence, Colin Miller, Evidence, Evidence ProfBlogger, EvidenceProf Blog, Federal Rules of Evidence, Hearsay, Hearsay Declarant, Hearsay Exceptions, Objections, Witness

A New Theory of Hearsay: Incorporating Rule 403 Into the Hearsay Analysis, by Evidence ProfBlogger (Colin Miller, Editor), EvidenceProf Blog

http://tinyurl.com/m6fchaq

Federal Rule of Evidence 803 provides exceptions to the rule against hearsay that apply regardless of the availability of the hearsay declarant. Federal Rule of Evidence 804 provides exceptions to the rule against hearsay that apply if the hearsay declarant is ‘unavailable.’ As exceptions to the rule against hearsay, these Rules merely place qualifying statements beyond the scope of Federal Rule of Evidence 802. And what this means is that, like all evidence, statements falling under a hearsay exception must be relevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 and have a probative value that is not substantially outweighed by dangers such as the danger of unfair prejudice under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. And yet, parties almost never make Rule 403 objections to evidence offered under a hearsay exception, and courts almost never sustain such objections. Why?