The Bright Coast

Progressive Thoughts from San Diego Alums on Law, Politics, and Culture

Just in Time for Finals

Posted by brightcoast on May 8, 2009

A real life Evidence hypo. I’m surprised the defense attorneys are attempting to challenge the Illinois laws on the basis of their constitutionality, since it the argument for allowing her statements (assuming Peterson killed her) appears strikingly similar (if not identical) to FRE 806(b)(6),  and the letters might come in to prove her then existing mental/emotional state under FRE 803(3). Maybe there’s also an argument for admitting her statements under 804(b)(2)–if she believed she was dying, though the imminent argument might be tricky to prove. Then, of course, there’s always the 807 catchall argument. Interestingly, neither the article nor the select remarks from Peterson’s attorneys,  make any mention of the Federal Rules.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: