This seems to be going the wrong direction. It’s not that the dying declaration has the ring of truth, it’s that the only way such a declaration can get into the record in a court case is if somebody else gives it (the declarant being dead), which otherwise would be hearsay and not allowed as evidence.
So, for instance, normally if you needed Sally’s testimony that she was at the 7-11 and saw Henrietta come out with a bag of money, you’d subpoena her and put her under oath to testify to same. If someone else says, “Oh, Sally said Henrietta came out with a bag of money,” it’s no good. But if Sally’s dead and on her deathbead Warner heard her say, “By the way, about that 7-11 thing, I saw Henrietta,” then Warner can take the stand and swear that he heard it.
This doesn’t mean anybody has to or will believe it. IANAL.
Actually, there are a number of cases in which this might be good. Sally’s statement could get in under the “excited utterance” exception, for example.
Nope. Warner cannot. Henrietta’s possession of the money has nothing to do with the cause of Sally’s death. Dying declarations are pretty damn limited.
Even if Henrietta killed Sally in the course of the robbery, it might not come in. Even if Henrietta beat Sally to death with the bag of money, all it would do would prove that Henrietta had a bag of money.
Well, presumably, there will be people available to testify that you have been a spiteful, lying SOB all your life, which would probably have some influence on whether or not the jury believes that dying statement from you.
As people have stated, the exception for the dying statement is just to allow it to be entered in court – the jury still has to decide if they believe it.
And regarding the written note, this doesn’t apply at all. The dying statement exception is to allow this into court, even though it’s ‘hearsay’ and the person who said it can’t be cross-examined. But a note is not a dying statement, it’s a physical piece of evidence. It can be admitted in court, even physically handed to the jury to examine. The other side can still argue that it’s a forgery, that he was drunk when he wrote it, etc., and the jury has to decide. But it can certainly be presented in court.
The written note? Certainly not.
“Hearsay” means I testify that I heard you say that. Nobody heard a written note.
As for authenticating it, there would be lots of places to obtain an authentic copy of the persons’ handwriting. His bank or credit card company. Signature on any legal document, like his will or marriage certificate. Latest tax return. Any check he had signed. The receipt signed for any credit card purchase. Library card. Video rental club card. Membership in a health club, or any organization he belonged to. Even the forms he filled in was he was admitted to the hospital that last time.
If it was challenged, and needed to be authenticated, there would be little trouble doing this.
So now I suppose it’s my responsibility to pass that “dap” on to pravnik? He was quoting me; I’m just the one who asked about Guido.
And if I’m understanding subsequent posts correctly, the deathbed rule doesn’t apply to that note, but it doesn’t need to, since a note isn’t hearsay in the first place.
A statement can be a note. A statement can be a gesture. A person can even adopt someone else’s statement by silence.
We’re in GQ here. Let’s remember to do our research.
A note can indeed be hearsay. A note is an out-of-court “statement” used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. That’s hearsay.
The deathbed rule doesn’t apply to a note written before I go to meet Guido.
However, if I write a note that says, “I am now going to meet Guido in the parking lot to talk about the money he owes me but doesn’t want to pay me,” that note can be used to prove that Guido and I were going to meet. It puts Guido and me at the scene. It can also be used as circumstantial evidence of Guido’s debt to me. That can be admitted also to show Guido’s motive. Depending on which purposes the judge chooses to admit the note under 403, he can give the jury a 105 instruction that they should only use it to consider the note for the purposes for which it was admitted.
Then, if I’m found later, dead of a gaping chest wound, and, in my own blood, I’ve written on the ground, “That bastard Guido shot me, and I’m bleeding out,” if there’s some way to authenticate that it was me that wrote the note, that’ll come in as a dying declaration.
Hearsay has nothing to do with hearing or saying.
