Disscussing The Law

1 . Define and discuss what is rumor , what is non rumour , and some car park exceptions to the construesay ruleHearsay is a tribute abandoned in which the peach does not directly hear or experience what he or she is giving affirmation to . In that end , the deposition be decl argond is indirect because what is cosmos asserted was not experienced first hand by the declarant , and therefore cannot really testify if it happened or not because the glossiness came from someone else . This brings complications because the original or first-hand witness is not gatekeeper in the administration , and thus , cannot be cross-examined or soundly scrutinizedFor this reason , hearsay is generally un veritable as articulate in the US court of law system , especially in criminal fountains . But as with all rules , there be exemptions to it as well . There are instances when hearsay is the continue way to present a certain piece of recount . For example , if the original witness has passed away , then presenting hearsay testimony is the only available course of action . In this case , the court must consider the hearsay riseSome greenness exemptions are dying declarations or a statement coif while the soul is dying declarations against interest or when the individual testifies to something that may cause some negative effect on the witness2 . How has the Crawford vs . Washington case impacted the admissibility of hearsay manifest in criminal trialsThe case of Crawford vs . Washington is a landmark court decision which necessitated the need redraw the rules guiding the use of hearsay evidence .

The autonomous Court overturned the decision of the Washington despotic Court and upheld the decision of the Washington Court of Appeals to reverse Michael Crawford s abhorrence for assault and attempted murder against Kenneth LeeThe case revolved astir(predicate) whether Susan s recorded statements in the constabulary station would be admissible as evidence against her husband Under court rules , spouses are not allowed to testify against their partner , without the express permission of the humourous , or if the spouse is the complainant in the case . In Crawford vs . Washington , the plaintiff presented the court with Susan Crawford s testimony in causal agency of the jurisprudence the defense argued that this evidence cannot be certain because Michael , the umbrageous , cannot confront the testimony because Susan , as his spouse , cannot stand witness in his trial . The court denied the defense s petition and accepted Susan s recorded statement made to the police where she said that Kenneth was not holding a weapon at that time . This testimony shattered the defense s not guilty plea by virtue of self-defense , and Michael was convicted of the crimeThe element of hearsay in this case lies in the fact that Susan s recorded testimony is presented by the police , and Susan cannot be presented in court to corroborate or hold the statement because as Michael s wife , she cannot do so . In this case , the Supreme Court overturned the conviction because Michael s unspoiled to confront the witnesses testifying against him...If you want to get a full essay, intend it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay