1506

I would argue that it is admissible as a prior statement of identification under 801(d)(1)(c)

Prior statements of identification refer to a common problem in criminal trials. When the defendant committed the crime while high on meth, he looked like a criminal. But now he's been out on bail for 18 months, and his lawyer has made him cut his hair, take a shower and wear nice clothes. When the trial finally takes place, most of the witnesses cannot ID him because his appearance has changed, so the police testify the witnesses picked him out of a lineup (cop testifies that a witness saw a lineup and said "That's him"). For an example of such an appearance change, see these before and after photos from the Portland, Oregon, sheriff's department.

Questions? Email tanford@indiana.edu and refer to 1506

The more important category of excluded statements in Rule 801(d) is part (2) -- statements by the opposing party (called "admissions under older versions of Rule 801 and many lawyers). Here, the opposing party is present in court and can explain, refute or place in context any prior statements they made, so there is no particular reason to treat statements by the opponent as hearsay. There is also a fairness notion at work. A party should not be allowed to object to testimony about the party's own actions and statements.

There are five kinds of statements by the opposing party
1) Personal
2) Adopted
3) Authorized
4) Made by agents (usually employees)
5) Made by co-conspirator

In item 15, how should the defense reply to the plaintiff’s argument that this is the statement of an opposing party?  When you think you know the answer, click here.