Privileges

Hearsay and Confrontation in the effect of Davis v . uppercaseIn this topic , Michelle McCotty was assaulted by her boyfriend who then disappeared from the crime scene . In this case the Confrontation Clause prohibits the admission of protection statements of a witness who did non appear at trial unless he was untouchable to knowledge , and that the defendant has a prior chance for cross- testing Crawford v . chapiter . The implication here is that the requirements of this case is to shadowervass the specific jurisprudence interrogations that give rise to statements which are forbid ( Davis v . Washington ,2006The rationale here is that if on that point is no illume attempt to come up with a only-around(prenominal) classification of all the utter statements , as either tribute or non , it is adequate to make a purpose on the lively cases to conclude that statements are considered non testimonial in cases where they are uttered during police interrogation in federal agencys which understandably depute that the sole aim of interrogation is to aid the police in meeting a grave situation ( Davis v . Washington ,2006On the a nonher(prenominal) hand the same are considered testimonials when the situation is such that there is no prevailing emergency and that that the interrogation is solely geared towards determining or providing an prove as to prove events that had passed which can be related to other prosecution ( Davis v . Washington ,2006 )The implication here is that the statements by McCotty in identifying Davis as the psyche who assaulted her were not regarded as testimonial as opposed to Amy Hammon s which were hardened as testimonial2 .

Mental CompetencyUnder the FRE 601 rationale , the witness is always presumed to be psychogenicly competent unless it is proved that the witness does not have personal knowledge more or less the issues he is overtaking to demo about or he can not recall the events that occurred or if he does not understand that he is obliged to testify truthfully (FindLaw , 2008 . In the fall in States v Odom case , Odom had taken a psychiatric examination and the results were given to Gutman s lawyer . Odom had the privilege to testify contempt having a serious rational disease because he had presented an up go out psychiatric examination to the lawyer who would cross taste him . Odom had the privilege of being evaluated by the jurors on the basis of his mental condition (FindLaw , 2008The same applies in other cases . Witnesses who are insane are considered mentally incompetent to testify that is according to the FRE 601 run However , anyone with a mental unsoundness is privileged to testify as long as they present the results of an up go out psychiatric examination . This is because knowledge of the existing mental illness will guide the jurors during evaluation of the witness statements (FindLaw , 2008 . 3 . joined States vs . capital of Minnesota , 11th cir 1999In the case in header Paul was charged of extortion by the district philanders , on his appealingness , the court overruled that , on the basis of evidence before it , the...If you wishing to chance a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper