Thursday, September 6, 2012

US v. Annunziato case brief

  1. US v. Annunziato (2d Cir 1961)
    1. A is charged with taking bribes; he tells Harry the contractor that if he wants the job done, he has to give him some money; H died before trial; H’s son testified that his dad had said that A called and requested some money.
      • issue: can H’s son’s statement be used to prove that A made that call?  it’s backward-looking (used to prove something that happened in the past).
    2. holding: statement admitted.
      • it’s in the immediate past.
      • future action closely related to the retrospective component – H was doing something right then based on the immediate past event; the future is so closely related by design to the past that we’re going to let it all in, won’t draw a line b/t the two.
note: Annunziato is a stronger case than Pheaster, b/c time compression is much closer.

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...