p Under Federal Rule of turn out 804 on hearsay exceptions , the following is not excluded by the hearsay rail line up if the declarant is out of stock(predicate) as a witness . or in a prosecution for homicide or in a cultured action or proceeding , a educational activity do by a declarant while believing that the declarant s death was imminent , concerning the cause or circumstances of what the defendant believed to be imminent death , [ Federeal Rule of Evidence , 804 (b (2 )] Federal Rules of Evidence HYPERLINK hypertext transfer protocol / vane .cornell .edu / determines /fre www .cornell .edu /rules /fre / ] , the good word of the departed victim whitethorn be used as attest hardly for the after part robbery , excluding the three former robberies and murders committed . The statement of the deceased prior after existence critically wounded as well as the concomitant identification of the perpetrator from a photo array is allowable in court . This fall within the purview of a dying proclamation wherein it is considered as an exception to the hearsay rule because the deceased being the declarant make the statement fully advised as pain practice of medicine was withheld at his postulation and that the danger of imminent death was advantageously determinateMoreover , in the approach hearing conducted with the presence of the both 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 neckcloth owner did not state that he believed he was going to decease , 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 Unde r People vs Monteroso , the atomic summate! 20 Supreme Court held that the statement of the homicide victim describing his cause of death was a dying declaration under California constabulary and that as such , it did not violate the confrontation estimable of the charge (Freidmann , Richard , The Confrontation Blog , HYPERLINK http /confrontation righteousness .blogspot .com /2004 /12 /forfeiture-and-dying-dec larations .html http /confrontationright .

blogspot .com /2004 /12 /forfeiture-and-dying-decl arations .htmlThe inaccessibility of the victim store owner does not go against the sixth Amendment s Confrontation Clause as the victim was already slain prior to the trial . Certainly , the defendant would crap no means to cross-examine the victim during the trial itself . According to rightness Antonin Scalia , tribute statements of witnesses absent from trial have 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 express against the defendant and it is plainly conclusive that the testimony of the victim move within the purview of the conventional testimonial evidence where the right to confrontation applies . More so that the Crawford decision allowed the possibility of a testimonial dying declaration was made...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderEssay.net

If you w ant to get a full information about our service, visi! t our page: write my essay