EVIDENCE - HEARSAY AND CONFRONTATION - THE ADMISSION AS SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR STATEMENT MADE BY A WITNESS WHO AT A TRIAL HAS NO RECOLLECTION EITHER OF MAKING THE STATEMENT, OR OF THE EVENTS IT DESCRIBES, ...

• NCJ Number: 30053
• Journal: South Carolina Law Review Volume: 27 Issue: 1 Dated: (APRIL 1975) Pages: 257-273
• Author(s): ANON
• Date Published: 1975
• Length: 17 pages
• Corporate Author: University of South Carolina
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

IN UNITED STATES V. PAYNE (1974), THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE ADMISSION OF AN UNRECOLLECTED STATEMENT DID NOT VIOLATE GENERAL HEARSAY PRINCIPLES OR THE SIXTH AMENDMENT CONFRONTATION CLAUSE.

Abstract

THE RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION AND THE HEARSAY RULE ARE FIRST DISCUSSED IN RELATION TO THE EVIDENCE EACH EXCLUDES AND THEIR EXCEPTIONS. THE HEARSAY AND CONFRONTATION ASPECTS OF PAYNE ARE THEN DISCUSSED INDIVIDUALLY. THE AUTHOR NOTES THAT THE COURT FIRST REFERRED TO A WITNESS'S STATEMENT AS A PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED AND THEN REASONED THAT A STATEMENT WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE TESTS FOR TRUSTWORTHINESS UNDER THE PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED EXCEPTION MAY STILL BE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THAT EXCEPTION IF IT COMPLIES WITH THE RELIABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR OTHER RECOGNIZED EXCEPTIONS, SUCH AS PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND FORMER TESTIMONY. HE MAINTAINS THAT THE COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT 'UNDER THE SPECIAL FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE RELIABILITY OF THE RECORD OF THE WITNESS' PAST RECOLLECTION WAS SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED' WAS A CLEAR ERROR, SINCE IT DISREGARDS THE EFFICACY OF THE LIMITATIONS ON THE PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED EXCEPTION AND SUBSTITUTES ANOTHER STANDARD FOR ASCERTAINING RELIABILITY BY JUXTAPOSING ELEMENTS OF THREE HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS. IN FINDING NO CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE WITNESS' STATEMENT WHEN HE WAS UNABLE TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STATEMENT ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, THE MAJORITY CITED PERTINENT CASE LAW TO SUPPORT ITS CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS NO DENIAL OF CONFRONTATION SINCE THE WITNESS WAS PRODUCED AND WAS 'AVAILABLE' FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION. THE AUTHOR INSISTS THAT THE MAJORITY'S CONCLUSION IS INCORRECT SINCE THE WITNESS' LAPSE OF MEMORY SO AFFECTED THE RIGHT TO CROSSEXAMINE AS TO MAKE A CRITICAL DIFFERENCE IN THE APPLICATION OF THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)