Stalking Trial Evidence Admissibility

Summary

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, Marias statement to Lila is admissible as it shows Marias state of mind, not the truth of Victors actions, under Rule 803(3). In Dereks arson trial, GPS data and the check-in may be admissible under the business records exception (Rule 803(6)) and present sense impression (Rule 803(1)). In Lindas contract case, Mr. Harpers statement is admissible as a statement against interest (Rule 804(b)(3)). In Georges burglary trial, Jamess testimony about Masons statement is hearsay, as it was made outside the current testimony to prove Masons intent to lie.

Full Conversation

Please answer this prompt: Victor is on trial for stalking his ex-girlfriend, Maria. The prosecution seeks to establish that Maria feared Victor and changed her routines to avoid him. Maria is unavailable to testify due to a mental health condition. To support its case, the prosecution calls Maria’s friend, Lila, who testifies that, two weeks before the alleged stalking ended, Maria told her: “I’ve been taking the back exit at work and parking two blocks away just in case Victor is watching.” The defense objects on hearsay grounds. The prosecution responds that the statement is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted (i.e., that Victor was actually watching), but rather to show that Maria feared for her safety. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, is the statement admissable?
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, Maria's statement to Lila could be admissible. It's not offered to prove that Victor was actually watching, but to show Maria’s state of mind (her fear). This falls under the hearsay exception for statements of the declarant's then-existing state of mind (Rule *(*)).
Derek is on trial for arson. The fire occurred at *:* a.m. at a commercial building where Derek used to work. To establish Derek’s whereabouts at the time of the fire, the prosecution introduces data from a GPS tracking app called TrackMate, installed on Derek’s phone. At trial, the prosecution calls a forensic technician to testify that Derek’s phone log shows a manual “Check-In” at “Jack’s Bar (near the fire site)” at *:* a.m., with an attached note that says: “Just got here.” The app automatically recorded the phone’s GPS coordinates at the time of the check-in. The technician confirms that both the location data and the typed message were stored by the app. The defense objects on hearsay grounds, arguing that both the “check-in” and the note are out-of-court statements being offered to prove Derek was near the fire when it occurred. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, what best describes the admissibility of this evidence?
Case Rating: *
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the GPS data and the manual “check-in” could be admissible for the following reasons:
- Business Records Exception (Rule *(*)): The app's automatic recording of GPS coordinates may qualify as a business record, which is an exception to the hearsay rule.
- Present Sense Impression (Rule *(*)): Derek’s note “Just got here” might be considered a present sense impression, describing his immediate actions.
Would you like more information or have additional questions about this case?
Linda is suing Coastal Realty Co. for breach of contract, alleging that Coastal failed to honor an agreement to sell her a parcel of oceanfront land. Coastal Realty claims that it never entered into a binding agreement with Linda and that the land was already under contract with another buyer. At trial, Linda seeks to introduce testimony from a third party, Max, who will testify that the now-deceased owner of Coastal Realty, Mr. Harper, told him six months before his death: “I know we’re in trouble. We promised that land to Linda in writing, but I already sold it to someone else under the table. If this gets out, we could lose everything.” Coastal Realty objects to the statement as inadmissible hearsay. Which is the best argument for admitting Mr. Harper’s statement?
Case Rating: *
The best argument for admitting Mr. Harper’s statement is:
- Statement Against Interest (Rule *(b)(*)): Mr. Harper's statement is against his proprietary or pecuniary interest because it acknowledges a breach of contract and fraudulent conduct. Such statements are exceptions to the hearsay rule when the declarant is unavailable (due to death in this case).
Would you like to know more about how this rule applies?
George is on trial for burglary and the prosecution calls James to testify about what happened on the night of the incident. During cross-examination, James says: “Actually, I don’t believe a word that other witness Mason said. He told me, right before he got on the witness stand this morning, that he was going to lie about what he saw that night.” The defense objects on hearsay grounds. The prosecution argues that Mason’s statement was made in court, so it cannot be considered hearsay. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, which best describes whether James’s testimony is hearsay?
Case Rating: *
James's testimony about Mason's statement can be considered hearsay. Although the statement was made in court, it was made outside of the current testimony and is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that Mason was going to lie). Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, this is hearsay unless an exception applies.
Would you like more information on hearsay exceptions or other related rules?