Take 4 on A New Theory of Hearsay.

23 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Evidence, Hearsay, Rule 803 Exception, Rule 807

Tags

Colin Miller, Evidence, Evidence ProfBlogger, Federal Rules of Evidence, Hearsay, Jeffrey Bellin, Rule 403, Rule 803, Rule 807, United States v. Boyce

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. . . .

8th Circuit Decision Raises Evidence Questions.

16 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, Appellate Law, Child Molestation, Criminal Law, Evidence, Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 403, Rule 412, Rule 413, Rule 414, Sexual Assault, Speker evidence

≈ Comments Off on 8th Circuit Decision Raises Evidence Questions.

Tags

Child Molestation, Criminal Law, Evidence, Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule, Rule 403, Rule 412, Rule 413, Rule 414, Sexual Abuse, Sexual Assault, Speker evidence

Reversal of Fortune: Should Suspects be Able to Introduce Reverse 413/414 Evidence?, by Colin Miller, Editor, Evidence Prof Blogger

http://perma.cc/V3UM-C98B

[I]n United States v. Thunder, 2014 WL 944752 (8th Cir. 2014), the defendant was charged with sexual abuse of a minor and sexual abuse of a person incapable of consenting. At trial, the defendant sought to introduce the prior sexual abuse conviction of an alleged alternate suspect, but the district court deemed the evidence inadmissible under Rule 412(c)(1). This prompts two questions: (1) Why did the Eighth Circuit mention Rule 412; and (2) Is there such a thing as reverse Rule 413/414 evidence? . . . .