Thursday, September 6, 2012

Ohio v. Scott case brief

  1. Ohio v. Scott (OH 1972)
    1. Carol had originally given a statement to the police implicating her boyfriend; is now creating an alibi for him; prosecutor attempts to use 803(5) to get old statement in
    2. holding: statement was properly admitted under this exception
      • logical basis of this rule: distinction from “present memory refreshed” (use of memorandum to refresh witness’s memory, witness then testifies naturally) – here, witness’ present recollection is still absent after seeing the memorandum
      • application of rule to facts – all elements are met
    3. criticisms of this holding
      • memory should be fully empty – at CL, if witness could testify partly, though not fully, about the event, then that was enough (exception didn’t apply)
-must try to revive memory first – you have to make proponent establish need first, which wasn’t done here.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Exploring Career Paths: What Can You Do with a Juris Doctor Degree?

Earning a Juris Doctor (JD) degree is a significant accomplishment, opening a wide array of career paths beyond the traditional legal practi...