United States v. Rakes

Description
Customer Reviews

privilege for marital communications permits individual to refuse to testify, and to prevent spouse or former spouse from testifying, regarding any confidential communication made by individual to spouse during the of marriage. Extortion misprison.

Your Price: $10.00

Quantity

Idaho v. Wright

Trustworthiness of an out of court statement must be determined based on totality of circumstances that surrounded making of statement, without considering facts that may corroborate statement. Bootstrap.

Chambers v. Mississippi

State evidentiary rules may not be applied in such a manner as to deny a defendant right to present witnesses in his own defense.

Wagner v. State

Silent witness theory. Pictorial evidence is admissible if there is an adequate foundation attesting to accuracy of process that produced image.

Prior Bad Acts Are Relevant Evidence

United States v. DeGeorge; inextricably intertwined with a charged offense; may be admitted if constitutes a part of the transaction that serves as basis for criminal charge, or for coherent and comprehensive story regarding commission of crime.

Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause

Crawford v. Washington; for out-of-court statement to be admitted into evidence, the witness must be unavailable and the defendant must have had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.

Exceptions to Attorney Client Privilege

Howell v. Joffe; conversation protected if originated in confidence that it would not be disclosed, was made to an attorney in his or her legal capacity to secure legal advice or services, and was kept confidential.

Attorney-Client Privilege Inadvertent Waiver

Koch Foods of Alabama, LLC v. General Electric Capital Corp.; totality of the circumstances balancing test determines whether client confidentiality waived.

Client Identities Are Not Attorney Client Privilege

In Re Osterhoudt; Identity of attorney's client and nature of fee agreement are not protected by attorney-client privilege, unless disclosure of the information would implicate the client in the criminal activity for which legal advice was sought.

Crime Fraud Exception

United States v. Zolin; The court should undertake an in camera review of evidence to determine if the crime-fraud exception will bar a claim of attorney-client privilege.

Expert on Eyewitness Testimony

State v. Guilbert; Testimony by a qualified expert on the fallibility of eyewitness identification is admissible when the testimony would aid the jury in evaluating the state's identification evidence.

Unavailable Witness

United States v. Duenas; similar motive to cross-examine required; former testimony inadmissible; deceased declarant; hearsay rule.

Innocence Project

Peterson v. Bernardi; DNA evidence; testing evidence to prove innocence of convicted prisoner.

Shopping Bag

United States v. Rakes

Price

Select Usage (details) :

Related Cartoons