The purpose of subdivisions (e)(1) and (e)(2) of the Jencks Act, according to the Supreme Court in Palermo v. The language of subdivisions (e)(1) and (e)(2) is virtually the same as that of paragraph (1)(B) and (C) of the present rule. Subdivision (e)(2) statements, although not signed or approved by the witness, are "substantially verbatim" written or recorded accounts of oral statements made "contemporaneously with the making" of the oral statements. Subdivision (e)(1) statements are those "signed or otherwise adopted or approved" by a witness. The "Jencks Act" governs the production or discovery, in federal criminal trials, of written or recorded statements made to government agents by government witnesses. 801(d)(1)(A) the language of paragraph (1)(B) and (C) is borrowed from the federal "Jencks Act," 18 U.S.C. The language of paragraph (1)(A) is virtually identical with Fed. The intent is to include in paragraph (1) all written or recorded statements that can fairly be attributed to the witness-declarant. The present paragraph retains this exempted federal class in paragraph (1)(A) and adds two new classes of inconsistent statements that become exceptions to the hearsay rule, paragraph (1)(B) and (C). 801(d)(1)(A) modified the common-law rule to permit one class of inconsistent statements-those "given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition"-to be used substantively for the truth of the contents. Prior Hawaii law was to the same effect, see generally Kekua v. Paragraph (1): At common law all prior inconsistent statements of witnesses were classed as hearsay and thus required instructions limiting consideration to impeachment purposes. The present rule, in contrast, defines those prior statements by witnesses that may in addition be considered by the trier of fact to prove the truth of the matters asserted, that is, as exceptions to the hearsay ban of Rule 802. This rule should be understood in connection with Rule 613, "Prior statements of witnesses." Rule 613(b) governs the use of prior inconsistent statements for impeachment purposes, and Rule 613(c) governs the use of prior consistent statements for rehabilitation purposes. 801(d)(1) and place past recorded recollections among the hearsay exceptions for which the availability of the declarant is immaterial, Fed. The federal rules, in contrast, treat certain prior inconsistent statements, prior consistent statements, and prior identifications as non-hearsay, Fed. Code in treating all appropriate prior witness statements in a single rule. The formulation follows generally the scheme of Cal. This rule effects a reorganization of certain of the hearsay provisions found in Article VIII of the federal rules. If admitted, the memorandum or record may be read into evidence but may not itself be received as an exhibit unless offered by an adverse party. A memorandum or record concerning a matter about which the witness once had knowledge but now has insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully and accurately, shown to have been made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness' memory and to reflect that knowledge correctly. The declarant is subject to cross-examination concerning the subject matter of the declarant's statement, and the statement is one of identification of a person made after perceiving that person or The declarant is subject to cross-examination concerning the subject matter of the declarant's statement, the statement is consistent with the declarant's testimony, and the statement is offered in compliance with rule 613(c) (C) Recorded in substantially verbatim fashion by stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other means contemporaneously with the making of the statement (B) Reduced to writing and signed or otherwise adopted or approved by the declarant or (A) Given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition or The declarant is subject to cross-examination concerning the subject matter of the declarant's statement, the statement is inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, the statement is offered in compliance with rule 613(b), and the statement was: The following statements previously made by witnesses who testify at the trial or hearing are not excluded by the hearsay rule: Rule 802.1 Hearsay exception prior statements by witnesses.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |