1810

Dying declarations are covered by Rule 804(b)(2). I would argue that:

1) There is no proof that the declarant believed death was imminent -- he does not say so, and the nature of wound does not prove he was likely to die.
2) There is no showing he had personal knowledge of the identity of the shooter
3) The reference to the threat does not qualify as a statement concerning the cause or circumstance of the death. It’s not obviously connected.

Questions? Email tanford@indiana.edu and refer to 1810.

Finally, let's look at statements against interest, Rule 804(b)(3). Note that the "interest" implicated must be one of the three specified in the rule-- the three "P's" -- pecuniary interests (the statement may cost the declarant money); proprietary interests (weakens a property right or interest), and penal interests (raises the likelihood of criminal prosecution).

Note also the peculiar final sentence in (B): a statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability requires an extra showing of trustworthiness. Why? Surely confessing to a crime is not something one does as a joke.

The answer is jail-house confessions. Friends already serving time could say "I did it" to get their buddy off the hook, or enemies already serving time could say "we did it together" to get their enemy in trouble.

Look at Problem 18H

Andrews states twice that he designed the Titanic. The defendants object that this is hearsay. Plaintiffs first respond that they are statements of an opposing party. How should the defense respond? When you think you know the answer, click here.