Abernethy's Testimony Case Study

Improved Essays
II. The Department of Justice did not have substantially the same degree of interest in developing Abernethy’s testimony in the grand jury because of the procedural and substantive differences between the two proceedings.
In an effort to protect evidentiary integrity, the judicial system is hesitant to allow hearsay into the courtroom during trial. Congress has enacted a general ban that widely prohibits the admission of hearsay. United States v. Salerno, 505 U.S. 317, 322 (1992). However, some limited exceptions to the hearsay rule have been allowed. See Fed. R. Evid. 804. In particular, congress crafted twenty-four exceptions in Rule 803 and five additional exceptions in Rule 804. Salerno, 505 U.S. at 322. Therefore, presumably when
…show more content…
For former testimony given by a unavailable declarant to be admissible in trial, the testimony: (1) must have been given as a witness at a trial, hearing, or lawful deposition and (2) can only be offered against a party who had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross or redirect examination. Fed. R. Evid. 804. DiNofrio contends that Abernethy’s testimony given at the grand jury proceedings satisfies these conditions. It is undisputed that Abernethy was unavailable as a witness and that the grand jury proceedings satisfy the first part of the hearsay exception. It is not true, however, that the prosecution had similar motive or opportunity to develop Abernethy’s testimony such that is satisfies the exception. The facts show that the prosecution’s motive to fully develop testimony was substantially less than it would have been at trial.
When evaluating whether prosecutors have the same motive at a grand jury hearing as they would at trial, courts should use a fact-specific approach because it better reflects this Court’s precedent and the text of the rule. Under a fact-based approach, the Department of Justice did not have a substantially similar motive in questioning Abernethy because of the preliminary nature of the grand juries. Finally, even if this Court were to adapt a categorical rule about grand jury hearings,

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    If defendants were forced to testify they wouldn’t only have access to answering the questions from the defense attorney, possibly explaining the evidence against them, but they’d also be vulnerable to the cross-examination of the prosecution. The prosecution is supposedly supposed to uphold justice, meaning if they don’t have a strong enough case to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt, then they should drop the charges. However, we can imagine that that rarely happens, even if the defendant is innocent. Therefore, if an innocent defendant is being cross examined, the prosecution should be convinced of their guilt, otherwise, they should have dropped the charges. It’s also important to note that an overwhelming majority, almost two-thirds, of those convicted of crimes haven’t graduated high school.…

    • 1496 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Main Juror Jury Functions

    • 1854 Words
    • 7 Pages

    A juror, in this day and age, is needed in order for defendants to receive a fair and competent trial. Not every Juror, however, qualifies to attend a trial and determine the faith of the defendant. In order for a person to qualify as a juror, they are required to sustain certain functions in the court of law. That being said, the main function that a Juror must follow is the idea of determining who is a reliable witness and which statement is the most credible (Gardner and Anderson, 2010). Once the testimony has been evaluated…

    • 1854 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Petitioner also challenged the logic of the government’s argument that the jury instruction constituted plain error. For Petitioner, if the error was so egregious, the government should have objected at trial. Indeed, in other contexts, appellate courts applied the plain error doctrine to legal questions that were contested at the underlying trial, not in situations where there was no objection, and therefore no dispute, between the parties. In support of this argument, Petitioner analogized to the Court’s precedent in the Double Jeopardy context. Petitioner noted that the “the plainness and even egregiousness of an error in adding an extra-statutory element is of no moment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause where an acquittal was…

    • 1083 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    During any criminal proceeding, the law can either help win the case or lose the case. Every case is unique, whether it is a murder case or a simple assault case. This is why clients need skilled, knowledgeable attorney 's so that they can receive fair trials without police and investigators introducing evidence which may be illegally seized during an arrest. The judge has the ultimate decision whether evidence should be excluded or not, so bringing forth the Constitutional Rights of one 's client is pertinent. Judge Doe is excluding evidence during trial yet the prosecution asked the judge for an Evidentiary Hearing so they can argue their case on why the evidence should be allowed.…

    • 1291 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Jacobson arguing that the court had abused its discretionary powers when it did not allow Jacobson’s attorney’s to poll the jury, and instead assumed that the jurors had abided by the restrictions placed on them to avoid news reports. The due process clause guarantees everyone the right to a trial by an impartial jury, and this was denied to Sandra L. Jacobson when public broadcasting was clearly impartial towards the prosecution, and the jurors had the means to watch said report, which would render them biased. Legally, if there is the possibility that jurors may have been exposed to material that is prejudicial, then an appellate court should be able to gauge the exposure and determine the prejudice of the jury. The trial court was able to determine that unfair prejudice from this broadcasting station, including information that would be inadmissible in trial and would therefore contaminate the jury. Several cases have shown that warnings alone do not neutralize the potential for jury contamination, so a trial court should not rely solely on the warnings it gives jurors.…

    • 500 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In other words, if the trial is random or prejudice than justice will be denied. Because of the Fifth Amendment, the government cannot try a suspect charged with a federal crime unless the grand jury allows it. Nevertheless, states are not obligated to use grand juries because it has not been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment provides a right to be represented by an attorney before and during trial but the question that lingered was what if a person cannot afford one? In the past individuals had no choice but to be their own lawyer and well you could assume that those cases most likely did not end in their favor.…

    • 877 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Also, there must be a legal basis for the appeal such as alleged material error in the trial, despite not because the losing party did not agree with the verdict. If the defendant was convicted through the plea bargain then the right of appealing is demolished. Any convicted offenders are able to appeal their case based on the matter of law. When there is an appeal, the court reviews the case looking at the previous proceedings in the lower courts and will not consider new evidence. The appellate courts look at the record and the written briefs filed by the defendant and the prosecutor of the appeal.…

    • 1283 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The majority of the court’s opinion was presented by Justice Lewis Powell. In their analysis they concluded that the Baldus Study did not establish the clear intent of racial discrimination in the plaintiff’s case. They claimed that McCleskey failed to prove that any participating member in his case acted in a discriminatory manner against him. They concluded that discretion is crucial factor in the criminal justice process. Due to the critical need for discretion the plaintiff would have to provide clear and valid proof that discretion was abused before the court would take action.…

    • 902 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    at 340-41. Moreover, not only was the legal question at issue well settled, but had the defendant’s counsel argued against the sufficient of the evidence, the court would have had no choice but to grant the defendant’s motion for judgment. Accordingly, we determined that it was objectively unreasonable and unprofessional for the attorney to fail to argue that the defendant did not elude police, and had he done so the outcome would have been different. We, therefore, reversed the defendant’s conviction on direct appeal because his counsel was…

    • 1873 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Maryland. Therefore, he felt that he did not receive a fair trial because this evidence was not present because the office did not provide formal training regarding Brady. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court had to review the case and they stated that Connick was responsible for his employees not being properly trained on Brady v. Maryland were evidence is wrongfully withheld in a trial. Therefore, they sided with Mr. Thompson as well as all of the previous courts decisions and awarded Mr. Thompson for the violation of a fair trial. Hardy v. Cross: 565 U.S. _____, 132 S. Ct. 1626; 182 L. Ed.…

    • 1010 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays