Unlawful??? Detainment Video
- Thread starter u n v kenny
- Start date
Fsvtf wins agin.
...
I'm not in disagreement; I think we are saying the exact same thing. Evidence can be admitted either through exception to hearsay, or if its used for something other than to prove the truth of the matter (e.g. - state of mind). Hearsay evidence might be admitted in many types of proceedings (including bench trial). But during the motions in limine, defendant will move to exclude the phone calls, and sometimes might win.
This isn't an endorsement of Rossim's position that a 9-1-1 phone call can't be included at trial--of course it can, if it meets an exception, or if it isn't hearsay (not used to prove the truth of the matter asserted).
Gates/Spinelli discussion from earlier was for probable cause. To my understanding most states fall under Gates; NY for instance uses Aguilar-Spinelli for the stricter reliability/veracity prongs.
I can see why you would think I'm a law student, since in many contexts only a law school student would bother to post legal clarifications in a non-legal forum.
What I am is a former terminator owner who is thinking of returning to the Mustang fold. I was just passing through to see what people think of the S197 and the different iterations. And while visiting, I decided to pop by some of the other forums, like this one.
I'm not in disagreement; I think we are saying the exact same thing. Evidence can be admitted either through exception to hearsay, or if its used for something other than to prove the truth of the matter (e.g. - state of mind). Hearsay evidence might be admitted in many types of proceedings (including bench trial). But during the motions in limine, defendant will move to exclude the phone calls, and sometimes might win.
This isn't an endorsement of Rossim's position that a 9-1-1 phone call can't be included at trial--of course it can, if it meets an exception, or if it isn't hearsay (not used to prove the truth of the matter asserted).
Gates/Spinelli discussion from earlier was for probable cause. To my understanding most states fall under Gates; NY for instance uses Aguilar-Spinelli for the stricter reliability/veracity prongs.
I can see why you would think I'm a law student, since in many contexts only a law school student would bother to post legal clarifications in a non-legal forum.
What I am is a former terminator owner who is thinking of returning to the Mustang fold. I was just passing through to see what people think of the S197 and the different iterations. And while visiting, I decided to pop by some of the other forums, like this one.
I have over 150 trials under my belt. I can tell you I have never had a 9-1-1 tape excluded by a motion in limine unless it was not relevant to the instant matter. However, as it goes to proof or establishing PC, it will not be excluded by a Motion in Limine. It will go to hearing/trial and the defense can rebut.
I know this, as I deal with it constantly. My problem is actually get the recordings in a timely manner and not having them excluded under Richardson.
NY is also a model penal code state with no evidence code. Therefore, they are the outlayer on most things.
No, only a law student or legal academic (non-practicing attorney) would argue the exception and not the rule based in minutia and that led me to my conclusion which you seemingly wont refute.
Happy hunting.
...
In my first post I stated," it's not clear to me that a 9/11 call will always be admitted under a hearsay exception." I didn't realize that is arguing a rule based in minutia.
Your own, admittedly extensive, criminal trial experience leads you to believe otherwise. If anyone on the board is more interested in this, plenty of articles have addressed this issue. (See When Is Hearsay Statement Made to 911 Operator Admissible as "Excited Utterance" Under Uniform Rules of Evidence 803(2) or Similar State Rule, 7 A.L.R.6th 233 (Originally published in 2005).)
FordSVTFan I sent you a pm. [Edit: Or at least I would have sent a pm, apparently the PM system is too complicated for me to figure out.]
In my first post I stated," it's not clear to me that a 9/11 call will always be admitted under a hearsay exception." I didn't realize that is arguing a rule based in minutia.
Your own, admittedly extensive, criminal trial experience leads you to believe otherwise. If anyone on the board is more interested in this, plenty of articles have addressed this issue. (See When Is Hearsay Statement Made to 911 Operator Admissible as "Excited Utterance" Under Uniform Rules of Evidence 803(2) or Similar State Rule, 7 A.L.R.6th 233 (Originally published in 2005).)
FordSVTFan I sent you a pm. [Edit: Or at least I would have sent a pm, apparently the PM system is too complicated for me to figure out.]
Last edited:
I always find it funny when someone posts "stuff" and gets called out on their credentials they say something like "I am not an LEO, lets leave it at that" all that tells me is that the person is trying to make themselves out to be something they are not.
great
I find it equally funny when people on Internet forums engage in ad hominem attacks. Some of the statements the LEOs were making were simply incorrect (e.g. - telephone calls are NOT hearsay) and I thought some might find it useful to hear the distinction between admissible hearsay evidence and hearsay generally. Apparently I was wrong.
If I was trying to make myself to be something that I was not, I would have made a positive claim instead of a negative one. All of my posts were made in a respectful manner to all parties involved.
And there are lots of non-nefarious reasons why one might want to avoid pasting their identity all over the Internet. Lets say I am a civil litigation lawyer who occasionally takes on criminal cases pro bono. Do you give me more weight? More importantly does that add to the discussion? If I'm wrong, I'm still wrong. If I'm right, the same applies.
I actually was trying to message FordSVTFan to explain my situation, because as a lawyer I think he would be more cognizant of why I might not want to write it out.
At any rate, I've enjoyed my brief stint here. This forum generally seems to have a lot of hostility that I don't really understand. Your collective jobs must be quite stressful.
I find it equally funny when people on Internet forums engage in ad hominem attacks. Some of the statements the LEOs were making were simply incorrect (e.g. - telephone calls are NOT hearsay) and I thought some might find it useful to hear the distinction between admissible hearsay evidence and hearsay generally. Apparently I was wrong.
If I was trying to make myself to be something that I was not, I would have made a positive claim instead of a negative one. All of my posts were made in a respectful manner to all parties involved.
And there are lots of non-nefarious reasons why one might want to avoid pasting their identity all over the Internet. Lets say I am a civil litigation lawyer who occasionally takes on criminal cases pro bono. Do you give me more weight? More importantly does that add to the discussion? If I'm wrong, I'm still wrong. If I'm right, the same applies.
I actually was trying to message FordSVTFan to explain my situation, because as a lawyer I think he would be more cognizant of why I might not want to write it out.
At any rate, I've enjoyed my brief stint here. This forum generally seems to have a lot of hostility that I don't really understand. Your collective jobs must be quite stressful.
who attacked? I merely asked a question, you gave an evasive answer that indicated to me that you were not willing to stand behind your words. All I did was point that out. you want to consider that an "attack" feel free. I will just consider it as valid as your agreeing that a phone call is hearsay, which it is not. UNLESS and Untill someone tries to use it in court improperly. but the phone call, on it's face, is not hearsay.
no you weren't wrong but go read Adam's post again regarding credibility in your posts.
matter of opinion I suppose. I think when someone flat out asks you what your background is so they can decide whether or not to give credence to your statements it is not exactly respectful to give an evasive answer. that evasiveness leads one to wonder what it is you are hiding. you would not be the first to claim knowledge or to be something they are not. Most of them get caught eventually
it might. I woiuld tend to take one at his word if that were the case, much mores so than someone like rossim.
While I wouldn't expect a plethora of details, I fail to see how saying "I am a lawyer" or I am a "government lawyer" or something similar at a minimum. As someone with extensive experience in jobs that require secrecy or clearences or whatever I can understand wanting to keep the details out of a forum. but there is nothing to keep one from making a general statement as to what background you have that makes you an authority on the subject.
hostility? you haven't seen hostility. we can argue, debate, and any number of other things but generally on those who wear their feelings on their sleeves sees hostility where there is none. Someone inquiring as to your credentials is not being hostile.
Your opinion is fine and I understand that, but it's simply not the case. Just as I could say I don't understand why you won't paypal me 50 bucks everyday. It makes sense to me, but it's just not the case. :shrug:
We take the same precautions when identifying people regardless of what they are doing/carrying. People lie all the time, it's part of our job to pick up on the subtle clues that would make us keep digging.
Someone could as easily lie to me when investigating a barking dog complaint.
Man I love VT. Not uncommon to see People with long rifle and side arm. The Hunting is great! No one shits themselves it is amazing...... Mass resident sees man with a gun and flags down my buddy (VT Trooper) "Was he waiving it around like a mad man, or is it in its holster?" Masshole- "its in his Holster" Trooper- "Have a nice trip back to Mass" Too bad it is too cold for me.
Users who are viewing this thread
