Evidence: Text, Problems and Cases
- Allen, Kuhns, Swift, Schwartz
- 4th Edition
- ISBN: 0-7355-5622-9
| Page | Case Name | Citation | Court | Audio |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 584 | Crawford v. Washington | 541 U.S. 36 | Supreme Court of the United States, 2004 |  Download |
| 127 | Knapp v. State | 168 Ind. 153, 79 N.E. 1076 | Supreme Court of Indiana, 1907 | Download |
| 154 | Old Chief v. United States | 519 U.S. 172 | Supreme Court of the United States, 1997 | Download |
| Case Information | Fact Summary | Rule of Law |
|---|---|---|
|
Crawford v. Washington Supreme Court of the United States, 2004 541 U.S. 36 Pg. 584 |
Defendant was convicted in state court of assault. Defendant asserted that the admission of his wife's statement to police, after defendant invoked state marital privilege to preclude her testimony at trial, violated defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses against him. | "The bedrock procedural guarantee of confrontation of witnesses applies to both federal and state prosecutions. " "Even if the right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment is not solely concerned with testimonial hearsay, that is its primary object, and interrogations by law enforcement officers fall squarely within that class. " "Testimonial statements of witnesses absent from trial are admitted only where the declarant is unavailable, and only where the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine. "Where non-testimonial hearsay is at issue, it is wholly consistent with the intended constitutional design to afford the states flexibility in their development of hearsay law, as would an approach that exempted such statements from Confrontation Clause scrutiny altogether. Where testimonial evidence is at issue, however, the Sixth Amendment demands what the common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Whatever else the term "testimonial" covers, it applies at a minimum to prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial, and to police interrogations." |
|
Knapp v. State Supreme Court of Indiana, 1907 168 Ind. 153, 79 N.E. 1076 Pg. 127 |
"Appellant, as a witness in his own behalf, offered testimony tending to show a killing in self-defense. He afterwards testified, presumably for the purpose of showing that he had reason to fear the deceased, that before the killing he had heard that the deceased, who was the marshal of Hagerstown, had clubbed and seriously injured an old man in arresting him, and that he died a short time afterwards. ..." | "As said in 1 Wharton, Evidence (3d ed.), Sec. 20: 'Relevancy is that which conduces to the proof of a pertinent hypothesis.'" |
|
Old Chief v. United States Supreme Court of the United States, 1997 519 U.S. 172 Pg. 154 |
Old Chief was arrested for assault with a dangerous weapon and violation of a statute which made it unlawful for any felon to possess a firearm. | Relevant evidence may be excluded when it has a prejudicial effect and there is alternative evidence on point. |