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
Answer:
B.
Explanation:
Although she waited long it did not pass the status of limitation just yet it's 4 year exact. But two years ago was she failed to pay saying that the case is still ongoing. Plus it takes time to do work and most people don't pay workers before the job is done.
Answer:
No this was not the case for me and I was not aware that it was a good idea to have the opportunity to speak to the
