Is non testimonial evidence admissible in court?

Is non-testimonial evidence admissible in court?

From "Criminal Procedure & Constitutional Protections" (Second Edition) Non Testimonial Evidence: "Evidence that does not come from the mouth of a witness and may include conduct; physical evidence that may have the operative effect of proving guilt but has not been deemed to have the same effect as speech" Examples: Blood alcohol test, physical test to identify if a suspect is intoxicated. See case Schmerber v California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)

Evidence obtained from remote electronic traffic devices are admissible in cases or not?

In some jurisdictions they are, others have ruled them non-admissable.

Why is blood alcohol testing considered non-testimonial as opposed to evidence that is testimonial?

Because they are the results of a scientifically proven and court sanctioned laboratory test, (i.e.: the results speak for themselves) and they are not the result of someone's independent conclusion which requires testimony and cross examination. The common vernacular has a saying that covers this.... "It is what it is."

Explain why the supreme court has determined types of evidence that are non-testimonial as opposed to evidence that is considered to be testimonial?

AnswerNon-testimonial statements are those not intended to be preserved at trial, and not given in the process of an investigation, such as a transcript of a 911 call where the witness is describing a crime as it occurs, and is seeking aid rather than retribution. Testimonial statements are given after the crime has occurred, during an investigation of events. In the second instance, the witness is protected by police, not in immediate danger, and may have formulated a motive for giving rebuttable information.ExplanationThe Supreme Court's rulings on testimonial statements and hearsay exceptions rests on the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, guaranteeing the right of the accused "to be confronted with the witnesses against him."Certain circumstances, such as death of a material witness whose evidence is key to prosecution, raises the issue of how - or whether - that person's testimony can be presented in court. Specifically, the question becomes whether statements the witness made to police (hearsay) are admissible, or whether they have to be excluded because the defendant has no opportunity to rebut the hearsay evidence on cross-examination, since the witness isn't available to answer questions.In Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36 (2004), the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the standing precedent under Ohio v. Roberts, (1980), holding certain testimonial hearsay evidence admissible if it was "reliable" was tantamount to assuming the defendant was guilty. Justice Scalia wrote: "Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to dispensing with jury trial because a defendant is obviously guilty...."The Supreme Court decided the key was not a matter of reliability, but whether certain evidence could be considered testimonial, and therefore inadmissible in the absence of the witness; or whether the evidence qualified as non-testimonial, and therefore admissible on the grounds that introducing the material didn't trigger the Confrontation Clause.The Court determined that where testimonial statements are at issue, the only indicator of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is confrontation; therefore, statements made to police could not be admitted into evidence unless the person who made the statements was present in court. The decision did not, however, delineate exceptions to the rule that could be considered non-testimonial.In 2006, the Supreme Court clarified their decision in Crawford in tandem cases, Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana, 547 US 813 (2006) that stipulated witness statements not intended to be preserved at trial, but to resolve an "ongoing emergency," should be considered non-testimonialevidence and did not require the witness to be present in court for cross-examination.In Davis, the evidence in question was the transcript of a 911 call in which Davis' girlfriend reported to police that she had just been assaulted by her boyfriend, who had left the scene. The Court determined her statements were non-testimonial because of the circumstances under which the information was given, that the girlfriend had not intended to describe a past crime, but to seek emergency assistance for a crime that was underway and described events as they occurred.In Hammon, police were summoned to the Hammon's home by a third party reporting a domestic disturbance. The fight had ended by the time police arrived, but officers managed to talk their way into the house and subsequently obtained an affidavit from Amy Hammond stating that her husband had beaten her. Mrs. Hammond failed to appear for her husband's hearing, and the prosecution attempted to substitute the affidavit for direct testimony.The Court held that Amy Hammon's statements were testimonial, because they were given to police during an investigation of a crime that had already concluded. Testimonial statements require the presence of the witness in court, so he or she may be cross-examined by the defendant's counsel.The distinction drawn between the two types of evidence was summarized: "The statements in Davis were taken when McCottry was alone, unprotected by police, and apparently in immediate danger from Davis. She was seeking aid, not telling a story about the past."The Court remanded Hammon to the Indiana courts for fact-finding: "The Indiana courts may determine on remand whether a claim of forfeiture by wrongdoing-under which one who obtains a witness's absence by wrongdoing forfeits the constitutional right to confrontation-is properly raised inHammon, and, if so, whether it is meritorious. Absent such a finding, the Sixth Amendment operates to exclude Amy Hammon's affidavit."For a detailed discussion of other exceptions to the hearsay rule see the attached link.

You should send non negotiable instruments by?

The best way to send a non-negotiable instrument is with proof of delivery. This will force someone at the location to sign for the document and it is admissible in court.

To qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule a statement must have some indicia of reliability?

No, not since 2004. Under the precedent set in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 US 56 (1980), testimonial hearsay was admissible if it was was considered "reliable."This standard was overturned in Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36 (2004), in which the US Supreme Court determined such evidence violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment protection under the Confrontation Clause, which holds that a defendant has a right to confront (question) witnesses who testify against him/her.In Crawford the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that admitting "reliable" hearsay testimony was tantamount to assuming the defendant was guilty. Justice Scalia wrote: "Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to dispensing with a jury trial because a defendant is obviously guilty...."The Supreme Court decided the key was not a matter of reliability, but whether certain evidence could be considered testimonial, and therefore inadmissible in the absence of the witness; or whether the evidence qualified as non-testimonial, and therefore admissible on the grounds that introducing the material didn't trigger the Confrontation Clause.In 2006, the Supreme Court clarified their decision in Crawford in tandem cases, Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana, 547 US 813 (2006) that stipulated witness statements not intended to be preserved at trial, but to resolve an "ongoing emergency," should be considered non-testimonialevidence and did not require the witness to be present in court for cross-examination.Non-testimonial statements are those not intended to be preserved at trial, and not given in the process of an investigation, such as a transcript of a 911 call where the witness is describing a crime as it occurs, and is seeking aid rather than retribution. Testimonial statements are given after the crime has occurred, during an investigation of events. In the second instance, the witness is protected by police, not in immediate danger, and may have formulated a motive for giving rebuttable information.For more information, see Related Questions, below.

List two type of evidence that are testimonial?

Non-testimonial statements are those not intended to be preserved at trial, and not given in the process of an investigation, such as a transcript of a 911 call where the witness is describing a crime as it occurs, and is seeking aid rather than retribution. Testimonial statements are given after the crime has occurred, during an investigation of events. In the second instance, the witness is protected by police, not in immediate danger, and may have formulated a motive for giving rebuttable information.

Can visitation to non custodial parent be delayed or stopped if the child's doctor supports the action?

Only after a review of the evidence, and opposing opinions, by the court.

Does a non custodial parent pay child support if they are mentally unable to work?

That is for the court to decide based on what evidence he has that he is too ill to work.

Can hearsay of a habitual violator of a crime say a man with no record of such crime is the guilty party when all evidence is found on violator's property?

No, since the question presumes the evidence is hearsay; therefore it is inadmissible even if the witness had the highest degree of credibility. There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule and many instances where an out of court statement seems to be inadmissible hearsay but is not (i.e. non hearsay hearsay), that it serves no purpose to provide facts that would allow the statement to be used at trial. If the question posed more facts than just the statement that the evidence is hearsay, they would show whether the statement is admissible under an exception or as non hearsay hearsay. Once the statement is admitted as evidence it would be up to the jury to determine if the witness is believable.

What is a Non prejudicial statement?

A non prejudicial remark will be based on privious thought and evidence A non prejudicial remark will be based on privious thought and evidence A non prejudicial remark will be based on privious thought and evidence

Is it possible for personal representative purposely not list all assets on inventory list of deceased estate?

If there is evidence that the executor has not listed all the assets of the decedent the executor should be reported to the court immediately. Any evidence of non-reported property should be presented to the court and the executor should be removed and replaced.

Is non testimonial evidence admissible in court?

What else can I help you with?