Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jordan v Smith, (OH SC, 1846) Facts: Objection made, black witness
not competent on account of her color Reasoning: Per the law,
incompetent white cannot alter just because would like to, law is
clear
Boyd v US, (US 1892) Facts: s found guilty of murder, and
companions tried to rob ferryman, gun fight broke out - principal
witness for the prosecution was Byrd, s contend incompetent bc had
been convicted of larceny Prosecution produced a pardon from the
President Reasoning: Pardon was full and unconditional, competency
restored doesnt matter that DA requested so could testify
Washington v TX, (US 1920) Facts: Petitioner sought to introduce
testimony of Fuller, which was excluded Fullers testimony was
relevant and material and vital to , but had previously been convicted
of the same murder and sentenced to 50 years in prison TX statute
says co-participants could not testify for one another Reasoning: CJ
Warren Reverse 6th amendment guarantees right to compulsory
process, applies to states via 14th state statute made his testimony
inadmissible whether he was present or not Framers gave criminal
s the right to bring witnesses, but there were exceptions co-s have
traditionally been excluded b/c of interest concerns, idea that right to
present witnesses was subordinate to the courts interest in preventing
perjury but, absurd, more likely to lie to help prosecution petitioner
denied right to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
favor b/c state arbitrarily denied him the right to put a witness on the
stand whose testimony would have been relevant and material
reverse
Falwell v Flynt, (CoA 4th, 1986) Facts: Lawsuit over ad parody
published by s primary issue is DCs decision to admit s
videotaped conversation, argue that was mentally incapable of
telling the truth at the time he was deposed Reasoning: At CL a
charge of mental incapacity could be used to challenge a witness
competency to testify, but under FRE this objection only excludes
testimony in the rare case where the judge finds that because of
witness infirmities the testimony fails to meet relevancy requirements
of 104(b), 401, 403 discretion normally given towards admitting,
better to let jury decide believability and weight affirm
Baker v State, (MD CoA, 1977) Facts: What latitude should a judge
permit counsel when a witness takes the stand and says I dont
remember contends not allowed to refresh memory of a police