Hearsay Law: Recent Developments in Maryland and in the Supreme Court
27 Pages Posted: 11 Jul 2010 Last revised: 13 Jul 2010
Date Written: October 10, 2007
This paper was prepared as a CLE handout for a presentation for the Anne Arundel County Bar Association, and is in outline form. In brief, the paper deals with Hearsay Law: Both Civil and Criminal Cases, in Part 1, and The Confrontation Right after Crawford v. Washington: Criminal Cases, in Part 2. In more detail, Part 1 addresses the following: Generally, Evidence Not Offered as Substantive Evidence Cannot Be Hearsay; The Two Elements of “Out-of-Court” “Statement,” Making and Meeting Hearsay Objections; “TOMA?” or Nonhearsay?; Important Recent Maryland Decisions: Implied Assertions; Specific Exceptions. In more detail, Part 2 addresses the following: Texts of the U.S. and Maryland Clauses; Citations to U.S. Supreme Court and Maryland Court of Appeals Cases; When Does the Clause Apply?; How Can the Clause Be Satisfied?; How Does the Confrontation Clause Relate to the Hearsay Rule?; What If the Hearsay Evidence is Nontestimonial?; What Did Crawford and Davis Hold as to Whether a Statement is Testimonial or Nontestirnonial?; How Can We Analyze Whether Statements Outside the Holdings of Crawford and Davis are Testimonial?; How Did the Maryland Court of Appeals Interpret Crawford in Snowden?; What About “Business Records” of the State?; Dying Declarations; How Are Prosecutors and Domestic Violence Victim-Advocates Likely to Adapt to these Changes?; Forfeiture of Right to Object; Hypotheticals.
Keywords: Hearsay Law, Maryland, Supreme Court, Civil Cases, Criminal Cases, Crawford v. Washington, Out-of-Court Statements, Hearsay Objections, Confrontation Clause, Constitutional Law, Dying Declarations, Attorneys, Lawyers, Prosecutors, Domestic Violence Victims, Forfeiture of Right to Object
JEL Classification: K19, K29, K39, K49
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation