|
|
|
| Hearsay |
|
United States v. Bercier,
No. 06-4125 (8th Cir., November 1, 2007): Hearsay: In this case involving a conviction for Aggravated Sexual Assault and Abusive Sexual Contact in Indian Country, the convictions are reversed because the District Court abused its discretion in allowing hearsay testimony by an examining physician recounting in considerable detail what the victim said in a hospital interview about the alleged assault. NOTE: This is a very good case that has applicability in Oklahoma sex cases because it is a very common tactic for the State to put on the victim and then parade a series of witnesses who offer nothing but testimony of what the victim said to them about the crime. This is what happened in this case and the panel held this was error because the hearsay statements were offered as substantive evidence of guilt, not for the limited purpose of rehabilitating the credibility of the victim.
|
|
|
United States v. Mendez,
No. 06-3282 (10th Cir., January 24, 2008) (Published): Hearsay: Mendez was convicted of multiple counts involving Firearm/Ammunition Possession as well as Maintaining a Residence for the Purpose of Distributing CDS. These crimes occurred in Wichita, Kansas, and the evidence was obtained via a search warrant and subsequent search of his residence. He gave statements to the police, essentially admitting to the crimes. Mendez raised three issues on appeal and the Circuit denied all three and AFFIRMED. Mendez argued first that the Government relied upon "crude stacking of inferences" to prove possession of two shotguns and that he was an illegal alien; second, that his Confrontation Clause rights were violated by the introduction of hearsay (the results of the ICE database check; a drug ledger found inside the residence; and statements of a confidential informant); and third, that the Government violated Brady by failing to turn over field notes. Most of these claims seem rather weak and it appears to me that the panel published this opinion because of the holding that the findings from the ICE database search do not constitute hearsay.
|
|
|
|
