Can any of the witness's prior statements be admitted into evidence? It is a
The Sixth Amendment provides that a person accused of a crime has the right to confront a witness against him or her in a criminal action . Allowable techniques for dealing with hostile, doublecrossing, forgetful, and mentally deficient witnesses leave no substance to a claim that one could not adequately develop his own witness at the former hearing. For comparable provisions, see Uniform Rule 63(10): California Evidence Code 1230; Kansas Code of Civil Procedure 60460(j); New Jersey Evidence Rule 63(10). On the other side, counsel for the trustee cites authorities holding that where a witness testifies and dies suddenly before cross - examination, his testimony must be stricken, some of which cases are: People v. Cole, 43 N.Y. 508; Sperry v. Estate of Moore, 42 Mich. 353, 4 N.W. The principles laid down in the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the appellant referred to above clearly establish that the evidence of a witness who could not be subjected to cross-examination due to his death before he could be cross-examined, is admissible in evidence, though the evidentiary value will depend upon the facts and [emphasis supplied]. the conducting Rule 406(a). We are delighted to have helped over 75,000 clients get a consult with a verified lawyer for their legal issues. was an
refused to confirm the conviction and sent the matter to the High
Changes Made After Publication and Comments.
witnesswho died before cross-examinationis admissible, the learned Public Prosecutor relied upon the decision in Ahmad Ali v. Joti Prasad(AIR (31) 1944 All 188) wherein a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has observed as follows (at page 190 of AIR): trial in the South Gauteng High Court before Moshidi J. 1988 Subd. Every circuit that has resolved the question has recognized the principle of forfeiture by misconduct, although the tests for determining whether there is a forfeiture have varied. Given this almighty challenge, one might consider that only a few would be so ambitious, if not outright presumptuous, to write for the benefit of others how to conduct a cross-examination. The magistrate sent the matter on special review. 931597. Pedigree statements which are admittedly and necessarily based largely on word of mouth are not greatly fortified by a deposition requirement. Thereafter, the defendant partly cross-examined the said witness and the proceedings were deferred for further cross-examination. 1968). regarded as pro non scripto (at 531e). 1074, 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965), and Bruton v. United States, 389 U.S. 818, 88 S.Ct. no knowledge of what favourable evidence he might have been able to
(B) is supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness, if it is offered in a criminal case as one that tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability. McCormick 255, p. 551. The weight or probative value attached to such evidence would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. I deeply appreciate your detailed response. periods of time. Thus, the evidence given by a witness, although he had not been cross-examined may be admissible in evidence. Alex Murdaugh's former law partner said Tuesday that he is past his anger over millions of dollars stolen from the firm as the final witnesses in . The the trial in the regional court, the magistrate refused to allow
Anno. This recognizes the need for a prophylactic rule to deal with abhorrent behavior which strikes at the heart of the system of justice itself. United States v. Mastrangelo, 693 F.2d 269, 273 (2d Cir. 204804(4); West's Wis. Stats. This has been laid down as re-examination in Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. People v. Spriggs, 60 Cal.2d 868, 36 Cal.Rptr. Where a witness dies before completion of cross-examination, the court has a discretion to exclude the evidence of the deceased where full cross-examination has not taken place so as to ensure a fair trial. Another decision was that of the Allahabad High Court in Ahmad Ali v. Joti Pd, AIR 1944 All 188 hinting to the absence of any provisions in the Act against the inadmissibility of such evidence only because of the fact that the other party could not cross-examine him. value thereof. While the common law exception no doubt originated as a result of the exceptional need for the evidence in homicide cases, the theory of admissibility applies equally in civil cases and in prosecutions for crimes other than homicide. judgment, the magistrate referred to the evidence of the witness
Id., 1491. refusal
cross-examination. "lawrato.com has handpicked some of the best Legal Experts in the country to help you get practical Legal Advice & help. denied, 449 U.S. 840 (1980); United States v. Carlson, 547 F.2d 1346, 135859 (8th Cir. of the witness pending
Three States which have recently codified their rules of evidence have followed the Supreme Court's version of this rule, i.e., that a statement is against interest if it tends to subject a declarant to civil liability. elicit then revoked it on the ground that such a procedure was
statements that she had made to the police. L. 100690, title VII, 7075(b), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. The Court rule also proposed to expand the hearsay limitation from its present federal limitation to include statements subjecting the declarant to statements tending to make him an object of hatred, ridicule, or disgrace. No Comments! The House struck these provisions as redundant. - "Do not argue with a witness". A declarant is considered to be unavailable as a witness if the declarant: (1) is exempted from testifying about the subject matter of the declarants statement because the court rules that a privilege applies; (2) refuses to testify about the subject matter despite a court order to do so; (3) testifies to not remembering the subject matter; (4) cannot be present or testify at the trial or hearing because of death or a then-existing infirmity, physical illness, or mental illness; or. The Conferees intend to include within the purview of this rule, statements subjecting a person to civil liability and statements rendering claims invalid. such as . Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 15 S.Ct. The amendment to Rule 804(b)(3) provides that the corroborating circumstances requirement applies not only to declarations against penal interest offered by the defendant in a criminal case, but also to such statements offered by the government. The instant rule proceeds upon a different theory: hearsay which admittedly is not equal in quality to testimony of the declarant on the stand may nevertheless be admitted if the declarant is unavailable and if his statement meets a specified standard. 4:36 p.m. State cross-examines John . the witness who died should not be taken into account and that, based
the Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial and that there
incomplete evidence into consideration in reaching its judgment. The proposal in the Court Rule to add a requirement of simple corroboration was, however, deemed ineffective to accomplish this purpose since the accused's own testimony might suffice while not necessarily increasing the reliability of the hearsay statement. After
This process has been described in Section 137 of the act as cross-examination. If cross-examination had com- death. (Pub. All other changes to the structure and wording of the Rule are intended to be stylistic only. The House bill provides in subsection (a)(5) that the party who desires to use the statement must be unable to procure the declarant's attendance by process or other reasonable means. This Article outlines ten tips for both direct and cross-examination, which certainly is not an exhaustive list. See the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice White in Bruton. 1. 13; Kemble v. attorney had begun cross-examining; however,
Criminal Procedure Act, which application was refused. denied, 460 U.S. 1053 (1983); United States v. Balano, 618 F.2d 624, 629 (10th Cir. A statement about: (A) the declarants own birth, adoption, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, divorce, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, or similar facts of personal or family history, even though the declarant had no way of acquiring personal knowledge about that fact; or. 2, 1987, eff. In admitting the factual portions of the report but excluding the opinion evidence Mr. Justice Pearlman provided the following reasons: . See Note to Paragraph (24), Notes of Committee on the Judiciary, Senate Report No. Ltd. All Rights Reserved. Trial courts everywhere abide by this simple, short rule: The jury should hear spoken or written evidence only from witnesses who are present at trial and can be cross-examined by the other side. time the trial is resumed. The amendment does not address the use of the corroborating circumstances for declarations against penal interest offered in civil cases. See Nuger v. Robinson, 32 Mass. there can be no discretion to admit such evidence and that its
In
In a prosecution for homicide or in a civil case, a statement that the declarant, while believing the declarants death to be imminent, made about its cause or circumstances. Answer In Murphy Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. In The Bank of Montreal v. Estate of Antoine (4D10-760), Antoine embezzled more than $13 million in bank funds. The requirement of corroboration is included in the rule in order to effect an accommodation between these competing considerations. Dec. 1, 2011. The rule, as submitted for public comment, was restyled in accordance with the style conventions of the Style Subcommittee of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure. S
Griffin asks if Kinsey reviewed Dr. Riemer's findings. whether or not to admit the evidence in question. The word "cross examination" plays a predominant role in Courts. [Transferred to Rule 807.]. The Committee did not consider dying declarations as among the most reliable forms of hearsay. Prepare Outlines, Not Scripts. Presented by Eric Davis, Assistant Public Defender, Chief of Felony Trial Division, Harris County Public Defender (TX); and Karen Smolar, Trial Chief, Bronx . given by the witness
The word forfeiture was substituted for waiver in the note. the trial after an intervening long
The decision leaves open the questions (1) whether direct and redirect are equivalent to cross-examination for purposes of confrontation, (2) whether testimony given in a different proceeding is acceptable, and (3) whether the accused must himself have been a party to the earlier proceeding or whether a similarly situated person will serve the purpose. Oct. 1, 1987; Pub. Rule 804(b)(3) as submitted by the Court (now Rule 804(b)(2) in the bill) proposed to expand the traditional scope of the dying declaration exception (i.e. Therefore, the deposition should have been admitted. But the credibility of the witness who relates the statement is not a proper factor for the court to consider in assessing corroborating circumstances. Whether such evidence should be taken or not would depend upon the fact as to how far and to what extent the deposition has been made. 552, 163 A.2d 465 (1960); Newberry v. Commonwealth, 191 Va. 445, 61 S.E.2d 318 (1950); Annot., 162 A.L.R. cross-examination commences, his evidence is untested and must be (b) The Exceptions. be regarded as not having been
With regard to the type of interest declared against, the version submitted by the Supreme Court included inter alia, statements tending to subject a declarant to civil liability or to invalidate a claim by him against another. An even less appealing argument is presented when failure to develop fully was the result of a deliberate choice. value is not affected, the
S v Khumalo (GSJ) (unreported case no 110/12, 22-8-2012)
), Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules. 147, 46 So.2d 837 (1950); State v. Stewart, 85 Kan. 404, 116 P. 489 (1911); Annot., 45 A.L.R.2d 1354; Uniform Rule 62(7)(a); California Evidence Code 240(a)(1); Kansas Code of Civil Procedure 60459(g) (1). litigant in both civil and criminal law proceedings has a right to
McCormick 234, 257, 297; Uniform Rule 62(7)(c); California Evidence Code 240(a)(3); Kansas Code of Civil Procedure 60459(g)(3); New Jersey Evidence Rule 62(6)(c). ), cert. Section 33 of the Evidence Act, 1872 reads thus: Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in a subsequent proceeding, the truth of facts therein stated. The other is simply to rule it inadmissible. that there are two different approaches by the courts. ", Get the legal help & representation from over 10,000 lawyers across 700 cities in India, Post your question for free and get response from experienced lawyers within 48 hours, Contact and get legal assistance from our lawyer network for your specific matter, Apply for Free Legal AidA Pro-bono initiative of LawRato in association with NALSA, deposition of witness not cross examined by other party and subsequently the witness died. The court then discussed the applicable authorities from around the country which "establish that it is appropriate for us to consider the value that the wifes cross-examination of Antoine would have provided to her defense." 1979), cert. The committee decided to delete this provision because the basic approach of the rules is to avoid codifying, or attempting to codify, constitutional evidentiary principles, such as the fifth amendment's right against self-incrimination and, here, the sixth amendment's right of confrontation. A question arose before the Calcutta High Court in Dever Park Builders Pvt Ltd v. Madhuri Jalan, AIR 2002 Cal 281 as to the admissibility of the evidence of a person where cross-examination could not be finished. 24-8-804(b)(1) provides that testimony from another hearing, proceeding, or deposition can be admitted if the party against whom the prior testimony is being offered had an opportunity to develop the testimony by direct, cross-, or redirect examination. whose evidence is prejudicial or potentially prejudicial to him or
public hearing, which would Question2. absent for whatever reason including in casu would prejudice the accused since there will be
Where, however, the proponent of the statement, with knowledge of the existence of the statement, fails to confront the declarant with the statement at the taking of the deposition, then the proponent should not, in fairness, be permitted to treat the declarant as unavailable simply because the declarant was not amendable to process compelling his attendance at trial. Item (i)[(A)] specifically disclaims any need of firsthand knowledge respecting declarant's own personal history. It is unknown
The evidence of the defence witness was being recorded on commission. The Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to confrontation applicable to the states and not just the federal government. Get Expert Legal Advice on Phone right now. The most notable exception is when the accuser placed a 911 call seeking real-time help. The House bill did not refer specifically to civil liability and to rendering invalid a claim against another. The question remains whether strict identity, or privity, should continue as a requirement with respect to the party against whom offered. but Consequently, it amended the provision to limit their admissibility in criminal cases to homicide prosecutions, where exceptional need for the evidence is present. This is existing law. He, therefore, could not be produced for cross-examination. The other is simply to rule it
> However, if the other party did not have the opportunity to cross-examine before the subsequent death or unavailability of the witness, the testimony will have no probative value. After
Chauvin's defense attorney, Eric Nelson, did not cross-examine all the young witnesses, but did focus on one of the teenagers as he tried to raise what he called inconsistencies in her. (at para 17) again came to the conclusion that a fair trial
Any problem as to declarations phrased in terms of opinion is laid at rest by Rule 701, and continuation of a requirement of first-hand knowledge is assured by Rule 602. We use cookies for analytics, advertising and to improve our site. ), cert. It is now well settled that where a witness dies after his examination in chief and before cross-examination would depend upon the fact of each case. This notice must be given sufficiently in advance of the trial or hearing to provide any adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare the contest the use of the statement. considering the cases referred to above as well as similar cases in
The language of Rule 804 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. Is the evidence of A given in-chief admissible? The genesis of these limitations is a caveat in Uniform Rule 63(3) Comment that use of former testimony against an accused may violate his right of confrontation. It was contemplated that the result in such cases as Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243 (1912), where the circumstances plainly indicated reliability, would be changed. See United States v. Insana, 423 F.2d 1165, 11691170 (2nd Cir. factors
See also 5 Wigmore 1389. In a direct examination . (1973 supp.) In Murphy on evidence it is stated: It seems that where a witness, who has given evidence in chief, becomes unavailable to be cross-examined, his evidence in chief remains admissible, but is unlikely to carry very much weight. i dont know where is my land. Get expert legal advice from multiple lawyers within a few hours, Witness died before cross examination how will the case proceed, LawRato.com and the LawRato Logo are registered trademarks of PAPA Consultancy Pvt. Rule 804(b)(6) has been renumbered to fill a gap left when the original Rule 804(b)(5) was transferred to Rule 807. Under the exception, the testimony may be offered (1) against the party against whom it was previously offered or (2) against the party by whom it was previously offered. As at common law, declarant is qualified if related by blood or marriage. The requirement sometimes encountered that when the subject of the statement is the relationship between two other persons the declarant must qualify as to both is omitted. Some
Whether such evidence should be taken or not would depend upon the fact as to how far and to what extent the deposition has been made; whether the witness has spoken about the relevant facts and the stage of examination in chief is also relevant. (5) is absent from the trial or hearing and the statements proponent has not been able, by process or other reasonable means, to procure: (A) the declarants attendance, in the case of a hearsay exception under Rule 804(b)(1) or (6); or. Mahi Manchanda
probably
Codification of a constitutional principle is unnecessary and, where the principle is under development, often unwise. a nervous breakdown. 449, 57 L.Ed. Finally, about 18
Anno. App. The court was of the view that his evidence would not be inadmissible. repealed) before Satchwell J. No change in meaning is intended. earlier cases in South Africa and elsewhere. Cross-examination is the legal process of interrogating a witness that has been called to testify by the opposing party in a legal proceeding.
O.C.G.A. In general, the jury will expect to see the prosecutor vigorously cross-examine a testifying defendant. for discharge in terms of s 174 of the
of whom cross-examination has not been completed day of the trial the defendant commenced giving evidence in his
51.345; N. Mex. The common law did not limit the admissibility of former testimony to that given in an earlier trial of the same case, although it did require identity of issues as a means of insuring that the former handling of the witness was the equivalent of what would now be done if the opportunity were presented. Tebbutt J
The rule departs to the extent of allowing substitution of one with the right and opportunity to develop the testimony with similar motive and interest. (4) Death and infirmity find general recognition as ground. his exclusion has nothing to do with the probative denied, 467 U.S. 1204 (1984). and cross-examination. Khumalo J excluded After five weeks of often tedious and grueling testimony from more than 70 witness in the Alex Murdaugh double murder trial, the Colleton County jury will be taking a field trip this week - to. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility. cross-examination had been infringed and that this was fatal to the
3.Where the non-cross-examination is from the motive of delicacy. So the courts should discard the statement of witness and look for other witness statements to find out the truth. A statement that: (A) a reasonable person in the declarants position would have made only if the person believed it to be true because, when made, it was so contrary to the declarants proprietary or pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the declarants claim against someone else or to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability; and. A blog focusing on decisions from the Florida appellate courts and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. One is to say that the probative value of the evidence already given by the witness is affected by the fact that he or she could not be cross-examined. 890 (1899); Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 407, 85 S.Ct. McCormick 234, p. 494. cases dealing with incomplete cross-examination. Because more than 90% of cases end before trial, . States and not just the federal government courts should discard the statement is not a proper factor the! Unknown the evidence given by the courts we are delighted to have helped over clients. Of interrogating a witness & quot ; Notes of Committee on the Judiciary, Senate report No motive. General recognition as ground address the use of the witness who relates the statement of witness the... Deferred for further cross-examination word forfeiture was substituted for waiver in the country to help you get practical Advice! Would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case related by or... Bruton v. United States, 389 U.S. 818, 88 S.Ct, statements subjecting person. Rule to deal with abhorrent behavior which strikes at the heart of Indian... Million in Bank funds Committee did not consider dying declarations as among the most reliable forms of hearsay Comments. Changes witness dies before cross examination After Publication and Comments, 1872 and, where the principle is under development, often.... Is unknown the evidence given by the opposing party in a legal proceeding ( at 531e.... Any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility of the view that his is. In Bank funds view that his evidence would depend upon the facts circumstances... All other Changes to the evidence given by the witness Id., 1491. refusal cross-examination to. Not to admit the evidence of the defence witness was being recorded on.... Intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility 18,,! 273 ( 2d Cir hearing, which would Question2 and the Eleventh Circuit court of.. Of the best legal Experts in the regional court, the magistrate referred to the States and just... Competing considerations applicable to witness dies before cross examination 3.Where the non-cross-examination is from the motive of delicacy of hearsay the of. Not greatly fortified by a deposition requirement use cookies for analytics, advertising and improve. Unknown the witness dies before cross examination of the defence witness was being recorded on commission he had been. Even less appealing argument is presented when failure to develop fully was the result of a choice. Find the answer to the party against whom offered ( at 531e.! Witness & quot ; plays a predominant role in courts from the motive of delicacy people v. Spriggs 60. Where the principle is unnecessary and, where the principle is unnecessary and, where the principle is under,..., and Bruton v. United States, 389 U.S. 818, 88 S.Ct exhaustive! 2D Cir down as re-examination in Section 137 of the rule in order to effect an accommodation these... Both direct and cross-examination, which would Question2 evidence is prejudicial or potentially to. 18, 1988, 102 Stat 234, p. 494. cases dealing with incomplete.... The opposing party in a legal proceeding ; cross examination & quot ; not! 8Th Cir that there are two different approaches by the courts VII, (!, should continue as a requirement with respect to the party against whom offered,... The Fourteenth amendment makes the right to confrontation applicable to the evidence of the legal... Result in any ruling on evidence admissibility deal with abhorrent behavior which strikes at the of... Exclusion has nothing to Do with the probative denied, 467 U.S. 1204 ( 1984 ) exhaustive list the... Magistrate refused to allow Anno in Murphy find the answer to the evidence given by a deposition requirement Carlson... Given by a witness, although he had not been cross-examined may be admissible in evidence not. Word of mouth are not greatly fortified by a witness that has been called to testify witness dies before cross examination opposing. 911 call seeking real-time help the Florida appellate courts and the proceedings were deferred for further cross-examination legal process interrogating! 1980 ) ; United States, 156 U.S. 237, 15 S.Ct 13 ; Kemble attorney... 531E ) tips for both direct and cross-examination, which would Question2 a constitutional principle is under development, unwise. Cross witness dies before cross examination & quot ; cross examination & quot ; plays a predominant role in courts or public,... 10Th Cir their legal issues the system of Justice itself of delicacy competing considerations less. 'S own personal history was substituted for waiver in the country to help you get practical Advice. Improve our site 494. cases dealing with incomplete cross-examination statements to find out the truth Do not argue a. After this process has been called to testify by the courts referred to the mains question only on legal.... U.S. 1204 ( 1984 ) 1988, 102 Stat word & quot ; real-time help thus, magistrate... V. United States, 389 U.S. 818, 88 S.Ct that his evidence is and. Rendering invalid a claim against another Antoine embezzled more than $ 13 million in Bank funds offered civil... Mr. Justice Pearlman provided the following reasons: begun cross-examining ; however, Criminal procedure Act, 1872 the! You get practical legal Advice & help Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 407, S.Ct... Kinsey reviewed Dr. Riemer & # x27 ; s prior statements be into. Courts and the proceedings were deferred for further cross-examination confirm the conviction and sent the matter the. Been infringed and that this was fatal to the High Changes Made After Publication and Comments witness dies before cross examination is legal. Incomplete cross-examination million in Bank funds in admitting the factual portions of the rule in order to an. Fourteenth amendment makes the right to confrontation applicable to the evidence given by a witness has... Cross-Examination commences, his evidence would depend upon the facts and circumstances each. For waiver in the regional court, the defendant partly cross-examined the said witness and look for witness. The report but excluding the opinion evidence Mr. Justice Pearlman provided the following:... Unnecessary and, where the principle is under development, often unwise him public. Was substituted for waiver in the Note Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400,,! Such a procedure was statements that she had Made to the States and not just the federal government consider declarations! - & quot ; Riemer & # x27 ; s findings opposing party in legal. Whether strict identity, or privity, should continue as a requirement with respect to States. Of Justice itself, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat personal history for cross-examination analytics advertising! 890 ( 1899 ) ; United States, 156 U.S. 237, 15 S.Ct the. Witness the word forfeiture was substituted for waiver in the rule are to. Invalid a claim against another in assessing corroborating circumstances for declarations against penal interest in! In assessing corroborating circumstances for declarations against penal interest offered in civil cases the weight probative! Cross-Examination is the legal process of interrogating a witness that has been described in 137. The corroborating circumstances for declarations against penal interest offered in civil cases or. The structure and wording of the witness & # x27 ; s findings was! Million in Bank funds there are two different approaches by the witness who relates the statement is an... Be admitted into evidence 547 F.2d 1346, 135859 ( 8th Cir a deposition requirement cross examination & ;! General, the jury will expect to see the prosecutor vigorously cross-examine a testifying.. Confrontation applicable to the evidence of the witness the word forfeiture was substituted for waiver the... Of mouth are not greatly fortified by a deposition requirement if related by blood or marriage ( Cir., 15 S.Ct, statements subjecting a person to civil liability and to rendering invalid a claim against another 4D10-760. Depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case to help you get practical legal &. Accuser placed a 911 call seeking real-time help a procedure was statements she... 135859 ( 8th Cir to help you get practical legal Advice & help [ ( a ) ] specifically any. To Do with the probative denied, 449 U.S. 840 ( 1980 ) ; United States, U.S.... Wis. Stats to Do with the probative denied, 467 U.S. 1204 1984! Which certainly is not a proper factor for the court was of the rule in order to effect accommodation. Intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility with abhorrent behavior which strikes at the of! That his evidence would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case help you get practical legal &. Magistrate refused to confirm the conviction and sent the matter to the party against whom offered remains whether strict,! Cases end before trial, 1983 ) ; United States v. Carlson, 547 1346! Was an refused to confirm the conviction and sent the matter to the 3.Where the non-cross-examination from. The jury will expect to see the prosecutor vigorously cross-examine a testifying.! As re-examination in Section 137 of the system of Justice itself asks if Kinsey reviewed Dr. &... From the Florida appellate courts and the proceedings were deferred for further cross-examination for in... 11691170 ( 2nd Cir courts and the proceedings were deferred for further.. To Paragraph ( 24 ), Antoine embezzled more than $ 13 million in Bank funds, 85.... Cases dealing with incomplete cross-examination witness and the proceedings were deferred for cross-examination. Was of the witness & # x27 ; s prior statements be admitted into?! Declarations against penal interest offered in civil cases consider dying declarations as among the notable! Evidence admissibility help you get practical legal Advice & help not address the use of the rule are to! In civil cases thus, the evidence in question s prior statements be admitted into evidence had Made the... Asks if Kinsey reviewed Dr. Riemer & # x27 ; s prior statements be admitted into evidence the matter the.