p chthonic national find of differentiate 804 on hearsay exceptions , the following is non excluded by the hearsay source up if the declarant is out of stock(predicate) as a witness . or in a pursuance for homicide or in a cultured action or proceeding , a parameter do by a declarant while believing that the declarant s close was impendent , concerning the cause or circumstances of what the defendant believed to be imminent finale , [ Federeal observe of Evidence , 804 (b (2 )] Federal Rules of Evidence HYPERLINK hypertext transfer protocol / wind vane .cornell .edu / patterns /fre vane .cornell .edu /rules /fre / ] , the testimonial of the decedent victim whitethorn be used as reason solo for the after incision robbery , excluding the three forward robberies and murders committed . The statement of the departed prior after world critically wounded as well as the resultant identification of the perpetrator from a photo array is admissible in court . This excrete within the purview of a dying proclamation wherein it is considered as an exception to the hearsay rule because the baseless soul being the declarant work on the statement fully assured as pain serve of medicine was withheld at his invite and that the danger of imminent cobblers last was advantageously determinateMoreover , in the prelude hearing conducted with the presence of the some(prenominal) parties and the pronounce , identification of the perpetrator of the fourth robbery was concretely make by the deceased and under Federal Rule 804 , stock-still if the transshipment center possessor did non state that he believed he was going to clog , a victim is not demand to state explicitly that he believes death is imminent just rather the store owner s impending death merchant ship be summarized and inferred from the nature and extent of his wounds Under People vs Monteroso , the atomic flake 20 Supreme courtroom held that the statement of the homicide victim describing his killer was a dying solution under California impartiality and that as such , it did not violate the confrontation up skillful of the charge (Freidmann , Richard , The Confrontation intercommunicate , HYPERLINK http /confrontationright .blogspot .com /2004 /12 /forfeiture-and-dying-dec larations .html http /confrontationright .

blogspot .com /2004 /12 /forfeiture-and-dying-decl arations .htmlThe unavailability of the victim store owner does not go against the sixth Amendment s Confrontation Clause as the victim was already dead prior to the psychometric test . for certain , the defendant would crap no means to cross-examine the victim during the trial itself . According to rightness Antonin Scalia , testimonial statements of witnesses absent from trial rich person been admitted only where the declarant is unavailable , and only where the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine (Scott Lewis , Wisconsin legality journal , 2004 , HYPERLINK http /www .wislawjournal .com /archive /2004 /0317 /confrontation-0317 .html http /www .wislawjournal .com /archive /2004 /0317 /confrontation-0317 .html . theless , the victim s testimony can certainly be used as certify against the defendant and it is plainly determinate that the testimony of the victim locomote within the purview of the stodgy testimonial evidence where the right to confrontation applies . More so that the Crawford decision allowed the possibility of a testimonial dying promulgation was made...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper