Ask Question
24 August, 02:05

A defendant was charged with the murder of a victim. During the course of the criminal trial, a witness testified on behalf of the defense that, at the time the murder took place, he saw someone who looked like the defendant dancing at a local nightclub. The defendant is eventually acquitted of the charge. Following the acquittal, the appropriate survivors of the victim bring a wrongful death action against the defendant. As part of her defense, the defendant wishes to introduce the testimony given at the criminal trial by the witness, who the defendant shows is now incarcerated in a prison in another state. Is the testimony of the witness admissible?

+1
Answers (1)
  1. 24 August, 02:15
    0
    The witness's testimony is inadmissible.

    Under Federal Rule 804 (b) (1), the testimony of a witness who is unavailable, given at another hearing, is admissible in a subsequent trial if there is sufficient similarity of parties and issues so that the opportunity to develop testimony or cross-examination at the prior hearing was meaningful.

    The former testimony is admissible upon any trial of the same subject matter. The party against whom the testimony is offered or, in civil cases, the party's predecessor in interest must have been a party in the former action. "Predecessor in interest" includes one in a privity relationship with the party, such as grantor-grantee, testator-executor, life tenant-remainder man, and joint tenants.

    These requirements are intended to ensure that the party against whom the testimony is offered (or a predecessor in interest in a civil case) had an adequate opportunity and motive to cross-examine the witness.

    In the civil suit here at issue, the survivors of the victim were not parties to the criminal case, nor were they in privity with any such party. (The parties to that case were the defendant and the government.) These survivors, who are the plaintiffs in the instant litigation, are the parties against whom the testimony of the witness is being offered. Because they were not parties to the action in which the witness testified, they had no opportunity to cross-examine him. Even if the government had a similar motive to cross-examine the witness as do the plaintiffs in the current action, that is not sufficient to make the government a predecessor in interest to the plaintiffs. Consequently, the testimony of the witness does not come within the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule, and the testimony is inadmissible hearsay. A victim and his former business.
Know the Answer?
Not Sure About the Answer?
Find an answer to your question 👍 “A defendant was charged with the murder of a victim. During the course of the criminal trial, a witness testified on behalf of the defense ...” in 📗 Social Studies if the answers seem to be not correct or there’s no answer. Try a smart search to find answers to similar questions.
Search for Other Answers