- Ohio v. Scott (OH 1972)
- 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
- 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
- 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)
The best place for complete law school case briefs and law-related news. Want to advertise or post sponsored content? contact us at mrmetropolitan@gmail.com
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Ohio v. Scott case brief
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
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...

-
Class 1: Elements of Fundamental Value: Present Value, Future Value, Net Present Value: Elements of Fundamental Value (38) One year : ...
-
I can help you land in the top 10% of your law school class. Imagine, how your life would be different if you were in the top 10% o...
-
Corthell v. Summit Thread Company (1933) · Facts: Corthell is a salesman for Summit. He invents contraption that is bought b...
No comments:
Post a Comment