Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: NITA: COURT ROOM EVIDENCE SUPPLEMENT: NEED ANSWERS!  (Read 1428 times)

haroon.

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
NITA: COURT ROOM EVIDENCE SUPPLEMENT: NEED ANSWERS!
« on: May 31, 2007, 12:46:26 PM »
Hello!

I bought the NITA Courtroom Evience: A teach Commentary: Second Edition: Suppplement (2001)

and need the answers because the guy who left it for me didnt leave the answers and I"m reaving Hearsay and would like to know if I"m getting them right or wrong at this point.

If anyone has the answers to the NITA book I listed above, can you please contact me.

Thanks so much!

haroon.

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: NITA: COURT ROOM EVIDENCE SUPPLEMENT: NEED ANSWERS!
« Reply #1 on: June 03, 2007, 01:34:18 AM »
Having a hard time with this quesiton.......cant really figure it out...hearsay is not my friend....heres the question....

Using FRE 801(d)(2)......

(a) The day before teh robbery, Bob told his girlfriend that he and ray were going to be in the money real soon. Is Bob's statement admissible against Ray?

(b) Bob then said to her, "Go get the bag with my gun I left at your place and put it in the back of Ray's care." Is Bob's statement admissible against Ray?

(c) Describe the burden placed upon the government in laying a foundation for the admissibility of the statement of Bob in problem 6b(b) against Ray?

any help would be appreciated.
thanks!

jwaxjwax

  • Guest
Re: NITA: COURT ROOM EVIDENCE SUPPLEMENT: NEED ANSWERS!
« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2007, 09:48:26 PM »
(a): Inadmissible.
801(d)(2)(E) the statement must be in furtherance of a conspiracy. Here, he's just telling his girlfriend, so whether he's refering to the robbery or not, it's not in furtherance of the ocnspiracy.

(b): Admissible.
Here, assuming Ray knows of the robbery, it's in furtherance of the conspiracy. (But see (c))

(c): The paragraph after 801(d)(2)(E) states that the statement alone is not sufficient to establish the existence of a conspiracy or the participation therein of the declarant. So those things must be established by corroborating evidence, if it is to fit the hearsay exemption.