Exam Details Write a 10 paper that address all of the following questions: Question 1 Based upon your review of Davis v. Washington, U.S. Supreme Court, XXXXXXXXXXdiscuss the issue of hearsay and...

1 answer below »
Please download to view attachment. I will need a very big discount for this assignment fr the following reasons. I paid for ten pages for my previous recent assignment and I only received nine pages. The assignment was submitted late. These two reason caused me to lost lot of points.


Exam Details Write a 10 paper that address all of the following questions: Question 1 Based upon your review of Davis v. Washington, U.S. Supreme Court, (2006) discuss the issue of hearsay and confrontation as applied in this case. Question 2 Based upon United States v. Odom, U. S. Court of Appeals, 4th Cir. (1984) explain the issue of mental competency as it relates to a witness statement under Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 601. Question 3 Discuss issues regarding opinion and expert testimony in United States v. Paul, 11th Cir. Court of Appeals (1999) Question 4 Based upon the Reading discuss the Best Evidence Rule as it applies to the introduction and definition of “writing” Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 1001(1) in United States v. Duffy, 5th Cir. Ct. of Appeals, 1972. Question 5 Based upon the Reading discuss the procedure for determining the admissibility of new “expert testimony” as outlined in Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 1993. As you answer all of the above questions, discuss within each specific rule and evidentiary area, how a court determines relevancy and how Court acts as the gatekeeper of admissible evidence.
Answered Same DayNov 27, 2021

Answer To: Exam Details Write a 10 paper that address all of the following questions: Question 1 Based upon...

Tanisha answered on Nov 29 2021
138 Votes
Exam Details
Write a 10 paper that address all of the following questions:
Question 1
Based upon your review of Davis v. Washington, U.S. Supreme Court, (2006) discuss the issue of hearsay and confrontation as applied in this case.
Question 2
Based upon United States v. Odom, U. S. Court of Appeals, 4th Cir. (1984) explain the issue of mental competency as it relates to a witness statement under Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 601.
Question 3
Discuss issues regarding opinion and expert testimony in United States v. Paul, 11th Cir. Court of Appeals (1999)
Question
4
Based upon the Reading discuss the Best Evidence Rule as it applies to the introduction and definition of “writing” Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 1001(1) in United States v. Duffy, 5th Cir. Ct. of Appeals, 1972.
Question 5
Based upon the Reading discuss the procedure for determining the admissibility of new “expert testimony” as outlined in Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 1993.
As you answer all of the above questions, discuss within each specific rule and evidentiary area, how a court determines relevancy and how Court acts as the gatekeeper of admissible evidence.
1. The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause provides the accused the right to cross-examine the witness against him.[footnoteRef:1] The US Supreme Court in Davis v. Washington (2006)[footnoteRef:2] answered the question whether the statements made by people, who are not subject to cross-examination, and introduced in evidence, would be testimonial or not. The case also devised tests to determine testimonial and non-testimonial evidence. [1: U.S. Const. amend. VI. ] [2: Davis v. Washington, 126 S. Ct. 2266. ]
Davis is a domestic violence case, where the victim called the 911 operator. The conversation between the operator and victim was admitted as evidence. In the conversation, the victim identified the accused, the location and the way of assault. She also said that the accused was not drunk. She answered more questions about the facts of the assault. She mentioned that the accused left with another person. Within four minutes in the call, the police officers arrived at the location and started the investigation.
The victim told the prosecutors that she did not wish to prosecute the accused and did not appear at the trial. The prosecution submitted a ‘evidence-based prosecution’ of the police officers who arrived at the location and witnessed the victim, her demeanor and fresh mark of injuries. They submitted the transcript of the victim’s conversation with the operator as victim’s statement where she identified the assaulter as Davis.
In Crowford v. Wasington (2004)[footnoteRef:3], the court stated that testimonial statement which is not subjected to cross-examination cannot be used as per the Confrontation Clause. In Davis, the court distinguished between which statements are testimonial and which are non-testimonial during police investigations. If the statement is made to report an ongoing emergency, such as the 911 call made in this case, it would be non-testimonial statement, whereas if the statement is made in reference to a possible past crime, then the statement will be testimonial. Hence, it has to be determined on a case by case basis looking at the circumstances in which the statement was made and the reason for that statement, to determine whether it was testimonial or not. [3: Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36. ]
The court found that the statements made by the victim identifying the assaulter, and describing the events as they were happening, the victim was asking help, thus, it was an ‘ongoing emergency’.
In Davis, the victim called the operator to seek police help and the questions she answered were in an unsafe, unprotected place where she was in immediate danger, her statement could not be treated as a witness testifying as under direct examination. Instead, she was making a statement to seek help from the police. Therefore, the court held that her statement did not violate the confrontational right of the accused.
Hence, the court developed the ‘the primary purpose’ test to find the primary purpose of for which the statement was collected: for ongoing emergency or for past crime. However, if the emergency has ended, it would be subject to the Confrontation Clause. This might create an issue in the future cases where the emergency has ended, and the victim can be threatened or intimidated by the accused to change her story.
2. The issue of mental capacity with reference to witness statement was discussed in United States v. Odom (1984)[footnoteRef:4]. [4: United States v. Odom, 736 F.2d 104 (4th Cir 1984). ]
Facts: Odom and other defendants were charged with voter fraud by casting absentee votes in the name of the residents of a retirement home. During the trial, the prosecution applied for presenting the testimony of 30 residents of the retirement home. The defendants applied for the competency of each of the 30 witnesses be determined in camera. This motion was denied by the court. 9 witness were not sworn as they did not understand the question they were asked. It was not objected to by the defendants. The defendants were convicted by the court. On appeal, the defendants asserted that the non-sworn testimony of the witness should not have been admissible, and presentation of testimony by the residents in front of the jury which showed the mental capacity of the residents which might have led them into believing that the defendants had used the residents to conduct voter fraud, and hence it should not have been allowed.
Analysis:
The contention of the defendant that the competency of the witnesses should have been done in camera was held not...
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download