1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
dezoksy [38]
1 year ago
12

Even if a declarant gives a statement to police concerning an alleged crime, that statement could still qualify as non-testimoni

al if police question the declarant while responding to an _________ ____________ (two words). The Supreme Court demarcated this boundary for testimonial hearsay in Davis v. Washington, 126 S. Ct. 2266 (2006), where the primary purpose of the questioning was not to collect evidence of a past crime, but to secure the scene and protect the declarant.
Courts applying the Davis exception most often summarize it with phrases such as "ongoing emergency" or "emergency situation." When police are responding to an ongoing emergency, their motive is to ensure the safety of all concerned, not to collect evidence. The Supreme Court ruled in Davis that statements elicited by police while responding to an ongoing emergency are not testimonial for purposes of the Confronta
Law
1 answer:
alisha [4.7K]1 year ago
4 0

Courts applying the Davis exception most often summarize it with phrases such as "ongoing emergency" or "emergency situation." When police are responding to an ongoing emergency, their motive is to ensure the safety of all concerned, not to collect evidence. The Supreme Court ruled in Davis that statements elicited by police while responding to an ongoing emergency are not testimonial for purposes of the Confrontation Clause.

Testimonial” hearsay is a statement that:

-ITlooks like the kind of testimony that would be offered at trial in aid of prosecution;

-It is made when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no ongoing emergency; and

-The primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to a later criminal prosecution.

The Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution protects the right of a criminal defendant to be confronted by his or her accusers in Court and to cross-examine any testimony that they may offer. The admission of hearsay (an out-of-court statement) – even if admissible under an exception to the rule against hearsay – can be in direct conflict with the right of Confrontation.

On the other hand, “non-testimonial” hearsay is a statement that:

-It is made primarily for the purpose of assisting police to meet an ongoing emergency; or

-It was made primarily for a purpose other than discovering, establishing or proving past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.

To learn more about Testimony visit here ; brainly.com/question/29244222?referrer=searchResultssearchResults

#SPJ4

You might be interested in
Instead of directly addressing the problem, an abuser will medicate it away by indirectly denying its impact for a short while.
jok3333 [9.3K]
The answer is a) true
5 0
3 years ago
Avoidable contract is a contract with full legal force discuss​
gogolik [260]

Answer:

A voidable contract is considered legal and enforceable but can be rejected by one party if the contract is discovered to have defects. If a party with the power to reject the contract chooses not to reject the contract despite the defect, the contract remains valid and enforceable.

Explanation:

3 0
2 years ago
Which statement describes Max Weber's theory about power?
pychu [463]
D: power is held by bureaucrats and administrators.
5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What is the goal of any traffic stop by law enforcement?
taurus [48]
To ensure that the driver understands that the offense that they have broke, meanwhile the officer is trying to maintain a safe situation.

So keep everyone safe, inform the offender, take action via. Verbal Warning, Written Warning, Ticket, or Arrest.
7 0
3 years ago
What in jrotc does Integrity mean?
Evgesh-ka [11]

Answer:

To do whats right, legally and morally.

Explanation:

Mark bRainliest

8 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • In 2008, Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act. What was the scope of the changes?
    6·1 answer
  • If a right-to-work law was proposed in Califonrnia, would you vote yes or no? Explain
    10·1 answer
  • Manny is driving down Polo Bl. And is stopped by the local police for speeding 45 in a 35 mph. Zone. He is written a traffic sum
    7·1 answer
  • Under which circumstance is an appeals court most likely to rule that a defendant has been denied the right to assistance of
    9·1 answer
  • How many seats are on the Supreme Court?
    5·2 answers
  • In your own point of view,what should be the key or the best way that the employer must do to avoid violations of labor and empl
    12·1 answer
  • Please help will mark brainliest!
    11·1 answer
  • The founders of the United States trusted in the impartial wisdom of citizens to check the power of all three branches of govern
    14·1 answer
  • Forensic scientists can determine something like the order in which shots were fired into a single window by examining: A. Scrat
    6·1 answer
  • Why can't you call the number for this
    6·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!