Taylore Pawlak Hearsay
In the case presented to the grand judge, on the murders of Samuel Believme, Joey Dorks and Johnny Wittballs, I believe there are some pieces of evidence that should not have been allowed in court. However there are some that were correctly in admitted into the trial. In this case, Johnny B Good was convicted of murdering the three men listed above. There is a large amount of evidence involved that was correctly used and some that wasn't. The issue of hearsay and its exceptions, found in the Sixth Amendment, are a common theme in this scenario.
Sleazy is a confidential informant for the police in the City of So What. He has helped convict many people in this town, so it makes sense for his witness statement to the police to be believable. His statement was taken in a video to distort his voice and facial features to protect him. …show more content…
His experience of nobody being checked into room 3 prior to the murder and the entrance of Tinker Bell to that room to discover the crime scene should be able to be used in court even though he couldn’t be there. Idunno was not able to be there because he went missing, which could have been because of Johnny B Good and the fact that Idunno was testifying against him. Johnny B Good has had a past of witnesses going missing when they were testifying against him. His testimony was right to be allowed in court because it could be considered forfeiture by wrong doing.There are a few exceptions to the hearsay rule, which are found in the federal rules of evidence. In particular, the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception is applicable to this case because of Sleazy testifying on video instead of live in court of of fear and concern over his safety because he was threatened. Other exceptions include the excited utterance and public records (Staff,
In the case presented to the grand judge, on the murders of Samuel Believme, Joey Dorks and Johnny Wittballs, I believe there are some pieces of evidence that should not have been allowed in court. However there are some that were correctly in admitted into the trial. In this case, Johnny B Good was convicted of murdering the three men listed above. There is a large amount of evidence involved that was correctly used and some that wasn't. The issue of hearsay and its exceptions, found in the Sixth Amendment, are a common theme in this scenario.
Sleazy is a confidential informant for the police in the City of So What. He has helped convict many people in this town, so it makes sense for his witness statement to the police to be believable. His statement was taken in a video to distort his voice and facial features to protect him. …show more content…
His experience of nobody being checked into room 3 prior to the murder and the entrance of Tinker Bell to that room to discover the crime scene should be able to be used in court even though he couldn’t be there. Idunno was not able to be there because he went missing, which could have been because of Johnny B Good and the fact that Idunno was testifying against him. Johnny B Good has had a past of witnesses going missing when they were testifying against him. His testimony was right to be allowed in court because it could be considered forfeiture by wrong doing.There are a few exceptions to the hearsay rule, which are found in the federal rules of evidence. In particular, the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception is applicable to this case because of Sleazy testifying on video instead of live in court of of fear and concern over his safety because he was threatened. Other exceptions include the excited utterance and public records (Staff,