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
What is meant by a government of laws and not of men
bonufazy [111]
It means that the law applies to everyone equally. Also no one is above the law.
7 0
3 years ago
According to captain Cochran, undercover operations are A.) Proactive B.) Reactive C.) Excessive D.) Insufficient
Anna35 [415]
The answer is C. Excessive
7 0
3 years ago
A confession is an admission of guilt? T/F
Serhud [2]

Answer:

True.

Explanation:

To be exact, a documented confession is an admission of guilt. If there is no documentation of the confession, the confession can be pulled at any time. The confession must also not be negated by the one who confessed at any time, or challenged by any party.

~

8 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Figure 1.1: Continuum of Victims' Contribution to Crime
Len [333]
I think it might be Facilitation. Based on the text you gave, it seems like she first, kept her car running, and also seems like she didn’t lock her car. She basically helped whatever car jacked that was waiting there, steal her car. She didn’t take any steps to help secure her car and prevent a crime like that. She facilitated. I’m not sure if this is right btw just seems to me this answer would make sense.
5 0
3 years ago
Help me with this lol.
Serga [27]

Answer:Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • How does federalism affect voting rights? provide examples if possible
    8·1 answer
  • I don’t understand it. Please help
    15·1 answer
  • Marty stabs Chris’s hand while playing poker because he is mad he is losing. Ordinarily, a person could just wrap a wound like t
    10·2 answers
  • Summarize articles 4-6 of the constitution
    13·1 answer
  • In a paragraph of 3–5 sentences, analyze the consequences of American imperialism during the early 1900s.
    11·2 answers
  • Circle) the correct words.
    8·1 answer
  • Should i ude the P90 on modern warfare?
    6·1 answer
  • Brainly bug and would allow it because it said it was rude and no that is not the bug
    9·2 answers
  • How did Thomas Jefferson change the idea of natural rights in the Declaration of Independence?
    6·1 answer
  • If you were given a speeding violation and told to report to court for a hearing, who would be MOST likely to be listening to yo
    6·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!