Thursday, September 6, 2012

US v. Iron Shell case brief

    US v. Iron Shell (8th Cir 1980)

    1. critical issue was whether the assault on 9-year-old Lucy was with intent to commit rape (not whether or not Δ committed assault, but what his state of mind was)
    2. one statement, where L told a neighbor, immediately after event (pulling up her pants and crying), “That guy tried to take my pants off”
      • admissible: happened nearly contemporaneously, L is clearly excited at time, and not responding to any question but voluntarily offering statement
    3. second category of statements happened later on
      • more difficult to admit, since L could have calmed down in interim – prosecutor has to satisfy judge that later statements were caused by excitement
      • holding: admissible; judge decided that L could have been (and was) still excited over the event at that point in time, and coaxing (questions asked) wasn’t excessive – veracity risks still much reduced.

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...