disposition, not a stationhouse affidavit, must be subject to cross, can come in (Rule 801(d)(1)(A)) Comes in to impeach the declarant and for the truth of the matter asserted Smith v. Smith V named Smith as assailant, signed under oath before a – notary. At trial, named another man. Court allowed her prior inconsistent statement to be used as substantive evidence If the statement was not made at a proper proceeding, only admissible to impeach Prior Consistent Statement Prior consistent statements to rebut accusations that the witness has recently made the statement up or there is some undue influence (Rule 801(d)(1)(B)) Triggering event: Statement or current act challenged Comes in both to rebut the statement and for the truth of the matter asserted Usually only admissible if it was made before the supposed fabrication moment or improper influence or motive Tome v. United States Did not need to be under oath Prior Statement of Identification Can come in, as long as it was 1) sworn in and 2) crossed at deposition, etc., and 3) the witness is available to testify (Rule 801(d)(1)(C)) Even if they get it wrong now, it as long as they are able doesn’t matter, to be cross-examined. Even if they remember anything now, they don’t are available to testify. State v. Motta V was robbed at gunpoint, and a police artist composite – sketch was drawn from her description, argued that it was inadmissible hearsay Sketch was valid form of prior identification as long as the declarant testifies it trial Exception embraces descriptions made to police Admissions by a Party Opponent Sometimes impeachment does not tell the whole story, so admissions come in as positive proof of what they assert Treat the same as Nonhearsay or as hearsay exceptions One should not be able to complain that his words are proved against him 5 types of admissions by a party opponent, civil or criminal, not hearsay Individual Admissions Adoptive Admissions Authorized Spokesperson Admissions by agents or employees Admission by co-conspirator ADMISSIONS CAN ONLY BE USED BY OPPONENT You use the exception for admissions to get your own words into can’t
disposition, not a stationhouse affidavit, must be subject to cross, can come in (Rule 801(d)(1)(A)) Comes in to impeach the declarant and for the truth of the matter asserted Smith v. Smith – V named Smith as assailant, signed under oath before a notary. At trial, named another man. Court allowed her prior inconsistent statement to be used as substantive evidence If the statement was not made at a proper proceeding, only admissible to impeach Prior Consistent Statement Prior consistent statements to rebut accusations that the witness has recently made the statement up or there is some undue influence (Rule 801(d)(1)(B)) Triggering event: Statement or current act challenged Comes in both to rebut the statement and for the truth of the matter asserted Usually only admissible if it was made before the supposed fabrication moment or improper influence or motive Tome v. United States Did not need to be under oath Prior Statement of Identification Can come in, as long as it was 1) sworn in and 2) crossed at deposition, etc., and 3) the witness is available to testify (Rule 801(d)(1)(C)) Even if they get it wrong now, it doesn’t matter, as long as they are able to be cross-examined. Even if they don’t remember anything now, they are available to testify. State v. Motta – V was robbed at gunpoint, and a police artist composite sketch was drawn from her description, argued that it was inadmissible hearsay Sketch was valid form of prior identification as long as the declarant testifies it trial Exception embraces descriptions made to police Admissions by a Party Opponent Sometimes impeachment does not tell the whole story, so admissions come in as positive proof of what they assert Treat the same as Nonhearsay or as hearsay exceptions One should not be able to complain that his words are proved against him 5 types of admissions by a party opponent, civil or criminal, not hearsay Individual Admissions Adoptive Admissions Authorized Spokesperson Admissions by agents or employees Admission by co-conspirator ADMISSIONS CAN ONLY BE USED BY OPPONENT You can’t use the exception for admissions to get your own words into
Evidence.docx