Tag Archives: Evidence ProfBlogger

Take 4 on A New Theory of Hearsay.

23 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by in Evidence, Hearsay, Rule 803 Exception, Rule 807

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

A New Theory of Hearsay, Take 4: Further Thoughts on United States v. Boyce, by Colin Miller, Editor, EvidenceProf Blogger

http://tinyurl.com/mfgkmzr

It’s interesting that Jeff [Jeffrey Bellin] posted an entry about Judge Posner’s concurrence in United States v. Boyce yesterday [February 14, 2014]. My latest set of hearsay posts has come in connection with a CLE I’m conducting in which I argue, in essence, that Rule 807 should swallow much of Rules 801 through 806. So, it’s refreshing to see that such an esteemed jurist apparently holds a similar viewpoint. Here are some more thoughts on Boyce:

United States v. Boyce is a garden variety case in which a 911 call was admitted under the present sense impression to the rule against hearsay (Federal Rule of Evidence 803(1)) and/or the excited utterance exception (Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2)). They also again raise the question of why courts are not engaging in a Rule 403 balancing of such statements. . . .

Judge Posner’s Theories On Hearsay Exceptions.

23 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by in 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Evidence, Excited Utterances, Hearsay, Present Sense Impression, Rule 803 Exception

≈ Comments Off on Judge Posner’s Theories On Hearsay Exceptions.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Judge Posner Advocates Reforming the Hearsay Rules, by Evidence ProfBlogger, Colin Miller, Editor, EvidenceProf Blogger

http://tinyurl.com/o62jkwl

As Colin explores alternate hearsay theories in his posts, it is worth highlighting a concurrence in U.S. v. Boyce, decided today in the Seventh Circuit, where Judge Richard Posner attacks the merits of both the present sense impression and excited utterance hearsay exceptions (FRE 803(1) and (2)).  As Judge Posner notes, the arguments against these exceptions are not new, but his no-holds-barred critique, stating the exceptions are “not even good folk psychology,” is sure to generate interest in revisiting the hearsay thicket.

A New Theory of Hearsay – Part 2.

11 Tuesday Feb 2014

Posted by in 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, Admissibility, Criminal Law, Evidence, Federal Rules of Evidence, Hearsay, Trial Tips and Techniques, Witnesses

≈ Comments Off on A New Theory of Hearsay – Part 2.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

A New Theory of Hearsay, Take 2: Rule 609(a)(1)(B) & Statements Offered For a Nonhearsay Purpose, by Evidence ProfBlogger (Colin Miller, Editor), EvidenceProf Blog

http://tinyurl.com/m8pcyw8

Dan is on trial for aggravated battery. He has a prior conviction for aggravated battery. After Dan testifies, the prosecution seeks to impeach him through evidence of his five year-old conviction for armed robbery. To be admissible, the evidence cannot simply satisfy Federal Rule of Evidence 403; instead, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1)(B), the prosecution must affirmatively prove that the probative value of the conviction outweighs its prejudicial effect.

A defendant calls an alibi witness at trial. After the alibi witness testifies on direct examination, the prosecution seeks to impeach him with evidence of a prior inconsistent statement that tends to incriminate the defendant. The prior statement is hearsay and only admissible to impeach that alibi witness, not to prove the truth of the matter asserted. My question today is: Should courts apply the same modified Rule 403 analysis that they would apply in the case above?

A New Theory of Hearsay – Part 1.

11 Tuesday Feb 2014

Posted by in Admissibility, Evidence, Federal Rules of Evidence, Hearsay, Trial Tips and Techniques, Witnesses

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

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

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?