Washington, U.S. Supreme Court - Essay Example

?Question Facts In the case of Davis v. Washington, U.S. Supreme Court, (2006) where McCottry had been assaulted by Davis the boyfriend who had later on fled the scene. McCottry was supposed to testify for charges of felony violation of domestic order. This led to using hearsay from the 911 call recording that was made by McCottry despite Davis objection of not doing it. This led to him being convicted under the clause of confrontation on the sixth amendment as the 911 call was enough to have him in jail for the decided time. Issue The issue before the court in the current case is whether Davis could still be convicted since McCottry did not testify against him in court. The court was forced to use the 911 call recording that was from the call McCottry had made that night to find Davis guilty of domestic violation. The court also used the fact that Davis ran from the scene as a felony that he could easily be found guilty by the Supreme Court if the two issues were put before them. There was also proof that this was not the first time Davis had assaulted McCottry from the recording. Rule The rule in this case is defined by the Washington court 541 U. S. 36 of appeal as well as the Supreme Court where the case required the court to decide whether the clause used which was the confrontation could only apply to the testimonial hearsay. The rule insisted the recording bore words which were enough for a testimony. Analysis The confrontation clause requires statements from other sources that must fall under the same prohibition to have clear classification to hold the suspect. The case was ruled against Davis though McCottry never testified they used the recording brought forth by the officer in charge that night. Discussion From the rule it is evident that the confrontation clause could be used to have fair rules regardless of the testimonies. Conclusion The decision in the case to find Davis guilty of domestic felony regardless of absence of the main witness at the trial by using recording made to report the same meant that the confrontation and hearsay can be used to rule fairly. Question 2 Facts In the case of United States v. Odom, U. S. discusses the issue of mental competency as it relates to a witness report under FRE 601. The defendant Odom was a candidate for reelection he was the deputy sheriff and was appealing with his team for their convictions arising for casting false ballots. They were all charged with participation in a plot to vote more than once as required by the constitution and were convicted at all counts. Issue The issue before the court in this case is that the entire defendant has appealed many times with all their appeals being rejected. This is because all the defendants were running for reelection yet they had schemed to vote more than once with the excuse of using absentee votes. There is also the fact that the residents of Alexander County were people of advanced age both mentally and physically ill. Rule According to FRE 601, state law governs a witness competency where every witness is deemed competent unless proved otherwise. One of the effects of this rule is to abolish, among other facts, mental capacity as a ground that would reduce a witness competency. Analysis The defendants in the case complained that the court erred in allowing unsworn and incompetent witnesses to testify for the prosecution in the case. In this case, the defendants were challenging the mental competency of the inhabitants of the Rest home. The defendants argued that the witnesses from the Rest home were incompetent to either appear or testify in the trial. According to the defendants, the procedure in which the district court used to resolve the competency of the witnesses was faulty. The defendants proposed a motion that the district judge should have ruled on the competency at the camera hearing. However, according to Rule 601, the trial court’s responsibility to rule on the competency of the witnesses is rebutted. The rule states that all witnesses are deemed competent except where state law deems them otherwise. Conclusion From the case, it is evident that the abolishment of grounds of disqualifying a witness by Rule 601 also disqualifies the need for a preliminary hearing to determine competency. Question 3 Facts In the case of United States v. Paul, there was a telephone made in 1996 may by an identified person to the manager of Wachovia bank that there was someone who had the intention of extorting the bank and was to leave the message on a note. The branch manager of the bank followed up the note and also contacted the security as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation who advised him to call them back immediately any demands were made. The next day a man was videotaped dropping the envelope but was in disguise. The note demanded that the manager to bring $100,000 to men washrooms at Atlanta McDonalds restaurant with a threat of harm if he did not follow instructions. One of the FBI agents posed as the manager and they arrested Paul who took the brief case from McDonalds and indicated him for extortion. Issue The issues on discussion are whether: the district court abused its judgment in qualifying Ziegler as a specialist or expert and permitting the government to have handwriting analysis evidence; the district court abused its good judgment in not including Denbeaux's rebuttal statement; and the prosecutor's final argument inappropriately shifted the load of corroboration to Paul Rule The following year the jury would not reach undisputed verdict thus the court acknowledged a mistrial. Later at retrial, the district court granted the government activity to exclude Mark Denbeaux’s testimony because they thought it would confuse the panel of judges. Paul's plead to exclude the handwriting expert testimony was also denied and he was found guilty of extortion and was sentenced by the district court to 63 months imprisonment of supervised release. Analysis The district court reviewed the decision of excluding Ziegler's testimony under Federal rule of evidence as abuse of judgment. In reviewing the declaration of prosecutorial misdemeanors, they assessed whether the defied comments were inappropriate and if yes if the prejudiced Paul’s significant rights. Discussion Paul argues that the district court exploited its judgment in agreeing Ziegler's evidence as an expert file examiner since; his handwriting examination failed to meet the consistency requirements of Daubert, Ziegler’s testimony never assisted the trial with facts and lastly Ziegler's statement was more damaging than probative under Federal Rules of Evidence 403. Conclusion For fore going reasons, they confirmed the decision of the district court. Question 4 Facts The appellant in this case, Duffy, was previously found guilty of transporting a motor vehicle in interstate commerce between two states. Initially, Duffy worked at a body shop in Florida; the stolen vehicle disappeared from the body shop at the same time as the defendant, and was later found in California in the possession of another individual. The other individual, after his arrest, testified that he got the stolen vehicle from Duffy. Fingerprints on the vehicle matched Duffy’s fingerprints, and the arresting police officer and an FBI agent testified to finding a suitcase in the car. In their testimony, the two law enforcement officers testified that the suitcase found in the car contained a white shirt with a laundry mark bearing Duffy’s initials. However, the defendant argued that the testimony should not have been admitted without the shirt being produced in open court. The objection by the defendant was not allowed by the judge, and subsequently, Duffy was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years and six months. Issue In the case of United States v. Duffy, 5th Cir. Ct. of Appeals (1972), the main issue is whether the shirt which led to Duffy’s conviction was supposed to be produced in open court so that the writing could be seen, and whether the trial judge was right in overruling the defendant’s objection to the admission of oral testimony regarding the writing. Rule Under FRE 1001(1), it is required that the original or reliable duplicate of any writing be admitted in court as evidence where the content of the evidence is legally significant. However, under FRE 1004 to 1007, exceptions may be permitted to the rule. Analysis In this case, the rule requiring the production of the original or reliable duplicate of the artifact is not applicable. This is because the marked clothing would not normally be considered “best evidence” since it is not writing. The shirt in dispute was either a chattel or writing, and the trial judge had the choice to treat it as either of the two. Since the writing on the shirt was simple, the judge was right in allowing the testimony to be presented without the physical presence of the marked shirt. The judge also took discretion from the fact that the writing was not of central importance to the case. Conclusion From the analysis of this case, it is evident that the best evidence rule was not violated since the shirt was not central evidence, the writing was simple and not easily forgotten, and the shirt was considered collateral evidence. Question 5 Facts In this case, two minors and their parents, the plaintiffs, alleged that the birth defects suffered by the minors were as a result of prenatal ingestion of a prescription by the mother. The respondent marketed the prescription drug, Bendectin, which was ingested by the mother. In the case, the District judge granted summary judgment based on expert testimony that determined that maternal ingestion of Bendectin was not a cause of birth defects. The minors became deformed when the mother ingested the drugs manufactured by the defendant, but scientific research does not prove that prenatal ingestion of the drug causes deformity, and the drug is still approved by the Federal Drug Authority. Rule The rule applicable in this case requires that for expert scientific testimony based on research to be acceptable, the research must have been conducted following scientific means of research. This rule guides the procedure for the admission of new expert testimony in litigation. Issue The issue in the case is whether the expert testimony based on scientific research is admissible in the case. Discussion Normally, it is hard for a court to determine whether scientific testimony is fact or theory, and which scientific theories are admissible in court. In this case, FRE 702 is now used to determine the procedure for the admission of scientific evidence in court. The first fact that is considered when determining whether the evidence should be admitted in the court is whether the theory I generally accepted in the scientific community, and whether the theory has been peer reviewed and published. The court then determines whether the theory can be tested, and whether there is a potential of error in its application to patients. Whenever there are disputes in the scientific community concerning the theory, it is the responsibility of the court to resolve the disputes. If it is proven by expert testimony that the incidence was a result of research conducted for the sole purpose of litigation, the expert should show exactly how they reached their conclusions. If the expert cannot show this, then the testimony is not admissible. In the case of Daubert Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, it was held that the Plaintiff’s expert’s testimony was inadmissible. References Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) United States v. Duffy, 454 F.2d 809 (1972) United States v. Odom, 736 F.2d 104 (1984) United States v. Paul, 175 F.3d 906 (1999) Read More