Question 1
Introduction
Hearsay evidence is defined as out-of-court statements that are introduced in court as proof of what the person who made the statement asserted or meant in the statement (Azubuike, 2013). Hearsay evidence is, generally, inadmissible. There areexceptions to the rule which allow such evidence to be used in courtsuch as where there is proof that the person who made such statements is unavailable, for example,e because of death. The admissibility of hearsay evidence in a court is linked closely to the Confrontation Clause as provided by the Sixth Amendment (Gauthier, 2007). The Clause guarantees the right of an accused person to confront witnesses testifying against him in criminal proceedings (Gauthier, 2007). This position was clarified by the decision of the court in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). The Supreme Court held that the application of the Confrontation Clause excludes all testimonial statements made by a witness who does not appear during trial unless it is proved that such a witness cannot appear in court to testify and that the defendant had been afforded a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness(Chiu, 2009). The effect of the decision in Crawford v Washington is that hearsay statements are admissible in court as long as they are not testimonial in nature. This ensures compliance with the provisions of the Confrontation Clause.
Discussion on Hearsay Evidence and the Confrontational Clause
The question of the admissibility of hearsay statements vis-à-vis the Confrontational Clause was further expoundedin Davis v. Washington, U.S. Supreme Court, (2006). The case comprises two cases decided together, that is, Davis v. Washington and Hammon v Indiana, which were domestic violence cases. In both cases, the victims of the domestic violence did not testify. In Davis v. Washington, the court had admitted the 911 recording,g while in Hammon v Indiana, the court admitted the victim’s affidavit and testimony from an officer who had questioned her (Chiu, 2009). The question before the Supreme Court was to decide when police questioning or interrogations produced statements that were prohibited by the Confrontation Clause. The Court held that statements are considered testimonial where the circumstances show that the primary objective of the interrogation is to prove past events that may be relevant to criminal prosecutions that may come later (Brewer, 2007). Statements are considered non-testimonial where the objective is to enable police officers to respond to an ongoing emergency. Based on this argument, the court held that the 911 recording in Davis v. Washington was non-testimonial and hence admissible since the recording was an interrogation intended to help police respond to an emergency. The affidavit and police testimony in Hammon v Indiana wwere however, held to be testimonial. This is because the interrogation by the police happened after the crime and was meant to prove what had already happened and would be relevant to later criminal prosecution (Chiu, 2009).
The Court’s decision in Davis v. Washington gives direction on how to deal with hearsay statements in light of the Confrontational Clause. The effect of the decision is that hearsay evidence or statements will be admissible in court where the said statements were uttered in the process of enabling the police respond to a continuing emergency (Brewer, 2007). This means that any statement which is recorded or uttered after the emergency has occurred will be regarded as testimonial and hence not admissible unless the person who uttered the statement can appear in court to afford the defendant the right to question them.
The decision in the case signifies the court’s role as a gatekeeper of admissible evidence. The court has the responsibility to decide which evidence can be admitted. Regarding hearsay evidence versus the confrontational clause, the court made it clear that hearsay evidence will not be admitted if it is testimonial in nature, its relevance notwithstanding.
Question 2
Introduction
Historically, common law disqualified certain persons from testifying as witnesses in a court of law,w such as individuals with mental illness, convicted felons, ns among others. Today, however, the Federal Rules of Evidence have eliminated almost all categories of witness incompetency recognized under common law (Gold, 2012). Rule 601 states thatevery person is considered as acompetent witness and can testify in court (Myers, 2005). This rule was discussed at length in the case of United States v. Odom, U. S. Court of Appeals, 4th Cir. (1984).
Discussion of the Case and the Issue of Mental Competency
The case of United States v. Odom, U. S. Court of Appeals, 4th Cir. (1984) was an appeal by the defendants after they had been convictedfor absentee voting in a Federal and State election conducted in 1982. They had been involved in a scheme to cast absentee votes on behalf of and in the name of the residents of a Rest Home in Alexander County, where the residents were elderly persons who were feeble both physically and mentally (Gold, 2012). One of the grounds of their appeal was that the trial court had erred in allowing unsworn and incompetent witnesses to testify for the government or prosecution. By making this claim, they were challenging the mental competency of the residents of the Rest Home to appear and testify at trial.
The court noted that the general rule for objecting to the competency of a witness is that suchan objection ought to be raised when the person is introduced as a witness. The failure to object to the calling of the witness acts as a waiver. The court referred to Rule 601 and further stated that the only ground that can disqualify a person from testifying as a witness is where the witness lacks knowledge on the matter which he is to testify, cannot recall,l or does not comprehend the duty to testify truthfully (Myers, 2005). It is the role of the jury or the trial judge to determine whether the witness has such a kind of competency, andthe judge'ss decision or discretion on such a matter can only be reversed where there is clear error. Based on this, the court found no error in the ruling of the district judge.
On the issue of the mental competency of the residents who appeared as witnesses, the court referred the case of Mettetal v Hall, 288 Mich. 200, 284 N.W. 698, 700 (1939) where it was held that it is for the judge or the jury to observe the person whose competency is in issue, note their demeanor and they mode of responding to questions asked (Martin, 2015). Where the court views the person as a competent witness, then he or she can be sworn and testify.
Conclusion
Based on the decision of the court in United States v. Odom, the effect of Rule 601 is that no person is to be prevented from testifying as a witness in a case, even where they have a mental illness (Orfield, 2016). The court in United States v Lightly, 677 F.2d 1027,1028 (1982) held that neither insanity nor feeble-mindedness could render a witness incompetent. A witness can only be disqualifiedwhere he/she lacks knowledge on the matter which he is to testify, cannot recall,l or does not comprehend the duty to testify truthfully (Gold, 2012).
Where there is an objection as to the competency of a witness due to mental illness, it is for the court to observe the demeanor of the person and determine whether the person can testify. The purpose of the observation is to ensure that the witness is capable of giving evidence that is relevant to the case. The reason for the leniency regarding mental competency is that the court, as the gatekeeper of admissible evidence,e is keen on ensuring that all relevant evidence is available to the court.
Question 3
Introduction
The legal framework for testimonies by expert witnesses is provided under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (Brennan et al., 2009). The rule states that an expert witness may testify or give their opinion in court if the expert’s specialized knowledge will help the court understand the evidence before it or determine the issues before such court, the testimony is based on sufficient facts, the testimony is obtained from reliable methods and principles and the expert has applied the methods and principles to the case (Berger, 2014 ). The issue of expert testimony was discussed at length in the case of United States v. Paul, 11th Cir. Court of Appeals (1999).
Overview of the Case
In United States v. Paul, 11th Cir. Court of Appeals (1999), Paul Sunonda, the appellant, was arrested and charged with extortion, which arose from an attempt to rob a bank. The bank had received an anonymous handwritten note directing the manager of the bank to leave $100,000 in a briefcase in a restroom in a McDonald’s restaurant (Berger, 2014). The bank alerted the FBI, and Paul was arrested as he attempted to leave with the briefcase. Paul was asked to give handwriting samples, and the FBI document examiner Larry Ziegler conducted handwriting analysis tests and concluded that Paul was the author of the note addressed to the bank. He was later convictedafter being found guilty of extortion. Paul appealedbecauset the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Ziegler to testify as an expert witness, and the court abused its discretion by excluding Denbeaux’s (Paul’s rebuttal expert witness) rebuttal testimony.
Issues Arising from the Case
Paul argued that the testimony of the handwriting expert failed to meet the admissibility requirements of expert testimony, the testimony did not assist the court, and that the testimony was more prejudicial than probative. The court,t in dismissing the appellant’s argument,nt referrto ed the case of Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579 (1993), where the Supreme Court expounded on Rule 702 (Grimm, 2014). The court stated that for a court to allow expert testimony, it must be satisfied that the expert witness proposes to testify to scientific knowledge and such knowledge will assist the court to determine the issues raised in the case. On the issue of whether the rule only applies to scientific expert testimony, the court in Kumho Tire Company Ltd v Carmichael held that the rule applies to all expert testimony (Grimm, 2014).
On the issue of whether the expert testimony assists the court, expert testimony ought to be such that it can offer something beyond the understanding of the average citizen. The testimony should be the kind that informs a layperson on a specialized field (Berger, 2014). In the appeal, the appellant had not challenged the expert’s qualifications, who, at the time of the trial, had been a handwriting examiner for 30 years.
Conclusion
In Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the court addressed three issues that determine whether or not to admit expert testimony as evidence. The expert must possess expert knowledge in a certain field, and such knowledge should be capable of assisting the jury, and such knowledge is based on sufficient facts. The gatekeeping obligation of the court requires the judge to inquire into the relevance and reliability of the testimony. The relevance relates to the connection of the testimony to the issues before the court, while reliability is based on the knowledge and qualifications of the expert witness.
Question 4
Introduction
The admission of writings as evidence in court proceedings is governed by Rule 1002 of the Federal Rules of Evidence,e which is also referred to as the best evidence rule. According to the Rule, when proving the content of a writing, the original writing must be produced unless there is an exception that applies (LaRocca, 2016). The application of the rule is restricted to recordings, writin, gs and photographs when one is proving their contents. The application of this rule was discussed at length in United States v. Duffy, 5th Cir. Ct. of Appeals, 1972.
Overview of the Case
In United States v. Duffy, 5th Cir. Ct. of Appeals, 1972, the appellant James Duffy had been convicted of transporting a stolen vehicle in interstate commerce. He was sentenced to two years and six months. He appealed the conviction on the ground that the court had made an error in allowing two witnesses to testify about a t-shirt which was marked “D-U-F” (Blond, 2009). He argued that the government should have produced the shirt itself rather than testifying about it as required under the best evidence rule.
Discussion of the Issues
The best evidence rruls provided under Rule 1002, requires that any party seeking to prove the contents of a writing, recording,g or photograph must adduce the original writing or recording. The requirement for the production of the original writing is meant to ensure that the document that the court will rely on is not altered and does not contain any errors (Ford, 2014). In United States v. Duffy, the appellant argued that the prosecution should have produced the shirt. The court stated that the shirt would not be considered as a writinghence the best evidence rule does not apply. The shirt was an object bearing an inscription, hence the trial court had the discretion to treat the shirt as a writing or a chattel. The decision by the judge to allow testimony about the shirt was correct,t as the inscription “D-U-F” was simple, le hence there was little danger that the witness would have a problem remembering the terms of the writing (Blond, 2009).
Conclusion
The best evidence rule is only applied when one intends to prove the content of a writing. The court, when considering whether or not the rule applies, must look at the object in question and determine whether or not it is writing. Regarding the question of defining a writing, Rule 1001 defines a writing to include a writing consisting of words, letters symbolsrs or numbers, a recording, and a photograph (Ford, 2014). This means that where an object has inscriptions on it, the court has the discretion to treat it as a chattel or a writing,g as was held in United States v. Duffy. The relevance of the evidence being adduced will depend on whether such evidence relates to a writing, ng and where that is the case, the court can admit the evidence relating to the writing.
Question 5
Introduction
The principles guiding the admissibility of expert testimony are outlined under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The rule requires that the expert’s testimony must help the jury to understand the evidence or determine the issue before the court and that the testimony must be the product of reliable methods and principles. The Rule means that the testimony to be given by the expert witness must be relevant and reliable (Laser, 2017).
Discussion on the Admissibility of Expert Testimony
The admissibility of new expert testimony was discussed at length in the case of Daubert Merrellrel Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 1993. In this case, the petitioners/appellants had brought a suit against the respondent, dent arguing that a drug called Bendectin, manufactured by the respondent, had caused serious birth defectson children whose mothers had ingested the drug during pregnancy(Laser, 2017). The court granted the respondent summary judgment based on the expert testimony of an expert who argued that the drug showed no risk of human defects. The petitioners had filed expert testimonies from eight experts, but the court decided that the evidence did not meet the general acceptance standard. This decision was upheld bythe Courtt of Appeal (Majmudar, 2011).
The general acceptance standard had been developed in the case of Frye v United States 293 F. 1013 (1923), where it was decided that expert testimony is only admissible where the expert’s theory was accepted within the scientific community concerned. The Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., however, rejected this standard (Grimm, 2014). The court stated that the standard in Frye v United States had been overruled by Rule 702. As a result, for expert testimony to be admissible, one had to show its relevance and reliability. Due to the nature of scientific evidence, one must show that there are good grounds that lead to the testimony given by the expert. Further, the testimony must be related to the case before the court so that the testimony helps the judge or jury to decide the issues before the court(Majmudar, 2011).
Conclusion
The test in determining the admissibility of expert testimony as established in Daubert vMerrellel Dow Pharmaceuticals, is that the testimony or evidence must be relevant and reliable. Relevance means that it must relate to the case before the courtto help the judge or jury determine the issues raised. Reliability means that it must be grounded in theory andhave good grounds to make it reliable.
References
Azubuike, L. (2013). Hearsay evidence: A comparison of two jurisdictions: The United States and Nigeria. The University of Georgia.
Berger, M. (2014).Expert testimony in criminal proceedings: Questions Daubert does not answer. Brooklyn Law School.
Blond, N. (2009).Evidence.Aspen Publishers.
Brennan, M., Dilenschneider, D, Levin, M., & Robinson, J. (2009).Finding and researching experts and their testimony. LexisNexis.
Brewer, L. (2007). Testimonial? What the heck does that mean?: Davis v Washington. Mercer Law Review, 58, 1097 -1110.
Chiu, C (2009). Convoluting the confrontation right: Davis v Washington, 126 S. Ct. 2266 (2006). Harvard Law School.
Ford, C. (2014). What the best evidence rule is- and what it isn’t. Alexander Blewett III School of Law, University of Montana.
Gauthier, S. (2007). What about the victims? Domestic violence, hearsay, and the confrontation clause in the aftermath of Davis v Washington.University of Massachusetts Law Review, 2(1), 301-335.
Gold, V. (2012). Do the federal rules of evidence matter? Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 25, 909-924.
Grimm, P. (2014). Admissibility of expert testimony in federal courts.United States District Court, District of Maryland.
LaRocca, N. (2016). Authentication, identification,n and the best evidence rule. Louisiana Law Review, 36(1), 185-213.
Laser, J. (2017). Inconsistent gatekeeping in federal courts: Application of Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to nonscientific expert testimony. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 30, 1379-1424.
Majmudar, K. (2011). Daubert v Merrell Dow: A flexible approach to the admissibility of novel scientific evidence. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 7, 187-205.
Martin, M. (2015).Challenging witness competency.Fordham University School of Law.
Myers, J. (2005). Myers on evidence in child, domestic,c and elder abuse cases. Aspen Publishers, Inc.
Orfield, L. (2016). Competencywitnessess in federal criminal cases.Marquette Law Review, 46(3), 324-352.
