Privileges

Hearsay and Confrontation in the effect of Davis v . chapiterIn this chance , 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 out of stock(predicate) to knowledge , and that the defendant has a prior chance for cross- examen Crawford v . uppercase . The implication here is that the requirements of this case is to discountvass the detail jurisprudence interrogations that give rise to statements which are forbid ( Davis v . Washington ,2006The rationale here is that if thither is no unload attempt to come up with a all(a)-around(prenominal) classification of all the express statements , as either tribute or non , it is adequate to ma ke a purpose on the breathing cases to conclude that statements are considered non testimonial in cases where they are uttered during police interrogation in federal agencys which understandably designate that the sole aim of interrogation is to aid the police in meeting a grave situation ( Davis v . Washington ,2006On the another(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 gear 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 somebody who assaulted her were not regarded as testimonial as opposed to Amy Hammon s which were enured 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 person-to-person knowledge more or less the issues he is passing game to knowledge 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 intellectual disease because he had presented an up go out psychiatric examination to the lawyer who would cross establish 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 amuck are considered mentally incompetent to testify that is according to the FRE 601 fashion However , anyone with a mental infirmity 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 . fall in States vs . capital of Minnesota , 11th cir 1999In the case in uncertainty Paul was charged of extortion by the district philanders , on his draw in , 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