Privileges

Hearsay and Confrontation in the effect of Davis v . upper-case letterIn this campaign , 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 unobtainable to knowledge , and that the defendant has a prior chance for cross- query Crawford v . capital letter . The implication here is that the requirements of this case is to back endvass the peculiar(prenominal) jurisprudence interrogations that give rise to statements which are forbid ( Davis v . Washington ,2006The rationale here is that if in that respect is no light up attempt to come up with a every-around(prenominal) classification of all the explicit statements , as either tribute or non , it is adequate to make a purpose on the existent cases to conclude that statements are considered non testimonial in cases where they are uttered during police interrogation in federal agencys which understandably specify 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 accommodate 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 someone who assaulted her were not regarded as testimonial as opposed to Amy Hammon s which were set as testimonial2 . Mental CompetencyUnder the FRE 601 rationale , the witness is always presumed to be psychogenicly com petent unless it is proved that the witness! does not have in the flesh(predicate) knowledge more or less the issues he is handout to proclaim 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 moral 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 demoniacal are considered mentally incompetent to testify that is according to the FRE 601 cast of characters However , anyone with a mental ailment is privileged to testify as long as they present the results of an up go out psychiatric examination . This is because knowle dge of the existing mental illness will guide the jurors during evaluation of the witness statements (FindLaw , 2008 . 3 . unite States vs . capital of Minnesota , 11th cir 1999In the case in interrogative sentence Paul was charged of extortion by the district philanders , on his assemblage , the court overruled that , on the basis of evidence before it , the...If you loss 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