1) In a civil auto action case, Joe, who is the defendant offered his own statement that he made to a bystander at the accident scene: "The intersection was clear when I entered it." Joe is offering the statement for the truth it asserts. Is the statement admissible? Why or why not? State the FRE that applies here.
In a civil action when Joe who is the defendant offered his own statement that he made to a bystander at the accident scene, when he stated, “The intersection was clear when I entered it” is a contribution account for truth, as he believed it to be and therefore, it should be admissible (Cummins and Marlowe). For me this week, it’s been confusing. I think this is my hardest chapter. I looked at this in two different ways.
First, …show more content…
The back and forth for me is that he has a right to his own fair trial. If he wants to say what he had heard, seen, felt, did, reacted like, made a judgment call action or reaction, and if he had reasonable knowledge to his perceptions, that he believed them to be true, it should not be hearsay (Cummins and Marlowe). If Joe has a trustworthy problem then under the FRE 807 if this statement barring any other FRE’s that would constitute a list of what hearsay is under Rule 807 if this was considered hearsay, then this rule states that “some statements may be admissible” (Cummins and Marlowe). if they have “equivalent guarantees of trustworthiness that is vital to the case” So, this is definitely a back and forth issue for me. Finally, Under FRE 801 (d)(2) if a defendant’s own statements aren’t hearsay because the law “says so” then does that mean even though the bystander isn’t there to testify to the truth of the defendant’s statement, that it should be dismissed (Cummins and Marlowe)?
Another consideration I had was if the defendant made his comment to a bystander was out of a rambling verbal exclamation. I suppose one side will absolute try to speak up, if the parties had attorneys present (Cummins and
In a civil action when Joe who is the defendant offered his own statement that he made to a bystander at the accident scene, when he stated, “The intersection was clear when I entered it” is a contribution account for truth, as he believed it to be and therefore, it should be admissible (Cummins and Marlowe). For me this week, it’s been confusing. I think this is my hardest chapter. I looked at this in two different ways.
First, …show more content…
The back and forth for me is that he has a right to his own fair trial. If he wants to say what he had heard, seen, felt, did, reacted like, made a judgment call action or reaction, and if he had reasonable knowledge to his perceptions, that he believed them to be true, it should not be hearsay (Cummins and Marlowe). If Joe has a trustworthy problem then under the FRE 807 if this statement barring any other FRE’s that would constitute a list of what hearsay is under Rule 807 if this was considered hearsay, then this rule states that “some statements may be admissible” (Cummins and Marlowe). if they have “equivalent guarantees of trustworthiness that is vital to the case” So, this is definitely a back and forth issue for me. Finally, Under FRE 801 (d)(2) if a defendant’s own statements aren’t hearsay because the law “says so” then does that mean even though the bystander isn’t there to testify to the truth of the defendant’s statement, that it should be dismissed (Cummins and Marlowe)?
Another consideration I had was if the defendant made his comment to a bystander was out of a rambling verbal exclamation. I suppose one side will absolute try to speak up, if the parties had attorneys present (Cummins and