Eric D. Foreman v. United States, No. 12-CF-2064 (decided April 30, 2015).
Players:
Chief Judge Washington, Associate Judge Fisher and Senior Judge Reid. Jonathan S. Zucker for Mr. Foreman. Trial judge: Robert E. Morin.
Issue:
At trial, Karin Jackson testified that her son told her, “Eric [Foreman] shot
the guy.” Mr. Foreman challenged the
admissibility this statement, which the government sought to admit as a prior
statement of identification under D.C. Code § 14-102 (b)(3) (“A statement is not
hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial . . . and is subject to
cross-examination concerning the statement and the statement is … (3) an
identification of a person after perceiving the person.”). The defense
argued that admission of the prior identification was error because, “hearsay
declarants must have personal knowledge of what they assert in order for their
declarations to be admissible.” Ginyard v. United States, 816 A.2d
21, 40 (D.C. 2003). According to the
defense, Ms. Jackson’s grand jury statement “I guess they seen it was Eric”
established that Mr. Jackson was not an eyewitness, and was merely relating
hearsay or rumor.
Holding:
The trial judge did not err in admitting the prior statement of identification
because other portions of the grand jury transcript supported a finding by a
preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Jackson was in fact an eyewitness. SF
Read full opinion here.
No comments:
Post a Comment