hearsay rules in court

• Court of Special Appeals Deciphers 'Testimonial' Hearsay Rules in Talbot County Assault Case

A 911 tape of a wife being attacked by her husband and her statement to police right afterward were admissible non-testimonial hearsay evidence, the Court of Special Appeals has held. In affirming the convictions of Joseph William Marquardt Jr., the court took a step toward deciphering last year's Supreme Court decision on the right of a defendant to confront an accuser.

• The Daily Record (Baltimore)
• September 16, 2005

• California Appellate Court Rules That 'All Relevant Evidence' Must Be Considered In Workplace Violence Proceedings, Including Otherwise Inadmissible Hearsay Evidence

In a ground-breaking decision that will make it easier for employers to obtain restraining orders to protect their employees from violence in the work...

• Mondaq Business Briefing
• United States Law Articles in English
• Labour and Employment

• In re Mack, (Ohio 2002)

parenting is a substantial right-due process-mental examination of a parent-Juv.R.32(A)(3)-admissible evidence in juvenile court-Juv.R.34(B)(2)-when rules of evidence applicable-Juv.R.34(I)-hearsay-Evid.R.801(C)-Evid.R.802-permanent custody-R.C.2151.414(B)(2)-sixteen factors to consider whether child can be placed with parent-R.C.2151.414(E)-best interest of the child factors-R.C.2151.414(D)-clear and convincing evidence

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. (2011)

... tomunicipal and magistrate courts' rules that provide for theadmission of certified blood-a.... . otherwise hearsay forensic reportsadmissible[,] while specifically...

• U.S. Supreme Court

• Hook v. Gahris, (Ohio 2011)

In proceedings in juvenile court on motion to impose restrictions on a father’s visitation, trial court erred by concluding that the Ohio Rules of Evidence – specifically those rules pertaining to hearsay – do not apply. Reversed and Remanded. (Donovan, J., concurs in judgment only.)

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Reconceptualizing Confrontation After Davis

On Jun 19, 2006, in the consolidated cases of Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana (hereafter simply Davis), the Supreme Court clarified the constitutional requirements for confrontation of accusers. The Court ruled that the Confrontation Clause generally bars a hearsay statement elicited by police unless the declarant appears at trial. But the Court made clear that when the emergency ends, a hearsay statement to police cannot surmount the Confrontation Clause unless the declarant appears for cross-examination. So the Davis ruling accomplished a rare feat: it caused consternation among both prosecutors and defense attorneys. The Davis ruling seems more sensible, however, when viewed as a first step toward a new regime for the regulation of hearsay -- a regime in which legislation p...

...-all exception" in Rule 807 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which prior case law had disfavored.2...

• Texas Law Review
• Vol. 85 Nbr. 2, December 2006

• Csa Affirms Murder Conviction; Rejects Brady Claim

Evidence that could be used to impeach a taped hearsay declaration is not subject to the disclosure rules outlined by the Supreme Court in the 1963 case of Brady v. Maryland, the Court of Special Appeals has held. Friday's opinion affirmed the first-degree murder conviction of Peter Eli Adams, rejecting the notion that Brady requires prosecutors to disclose a subjective expectation of leniency in the mind of a hearsay declarant giving a statement to the police.

• The Daily Record (Baltimore)
• November 07, 2005

• The Louisiana 'Explanatory Exception': Faithfulness to Louisiana?s Hearsay Framework or Mere Storytime with the Prosecution?

Introduction - II. Anatomy of an Anecdote: What Is the Explanatory - Exception? - A. The Rule: Hearsay - B. The "Exception": Explanation - C. What It Was and What It Is - D. Scope of the Exception - . Relevancy - . Verbal Statements v. Conduct - . Constitutional Restrictions - . Other Evidentiary Limitations - III. Louisiana’s Application of the Explanatory Exception: - A Tumultuous Tale - A. The Supreme Court Trilogy - B. Too Much Hearsay Relevancy - C. Uncaging of the Beast: Inconsistent Appellate - Application - . Blatant Explanatory Exception Abuse - . Specific Categories of Misuse - IV. Resolving the Plot’s Central Conflict: How to Legally - Apply the Explanatory Exception in Louisiana - A. Return to a Proper Relevancy Analysis - . Explanations of an Officer’s Conduct - . Explan...

• Louisiana Law Review
• Nbr. 71-4, July 2011

• USA v. Ney Aybar, (11th Cir. 2011)

... IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS. FOR... assessing their admissibility under hearsay rules; (5) the district court abused its discretio...

• Federal Circuits

• Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116 (1999)

... within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule. The court also held that the statements were...respec[t]" certain unquestionable rules of evidence in drafting the Confrontation Clause. ...

• U.S. Supreme Court