During later questioning the defendant made inculpatory
statements about the rapes, which the Court of Appeals held should have been suppressed under the newly pronounced exclusionary rule of Rogers.
Additionally, pre-Miranda and post-Miranda statements need not be inculpatory
285) The Supreme Court gives two examples where fact-finding by a trial court would be common: (1) whether "there were conflicting evidence as to when, relative to the 'startling event,' a declarant made a statement for purposes of [the excited utterance exception under] OEC 803(2)" and (2) "whether a witness had a motive to falsely ascribe an inculpatory
statement to the declarant under [the statement against interest exception found in] OEC 804(3)(c), we would presume that the trial court resolved those factual disputes consistently with its ultimate evidentiary ruling.
152) They would "transport" him without his attorney's knowledge and, during the car ride, question him in an attempt to elicit inculpatory
The Investigating Judges are obliged during their investigation to consider both inculpatory
and exculpatory evidence.
92) But as described above, not all states have statutory prohibitions on the admission of inculpatory
statements made during evaluations and hearings used to determine amenability to treatment.
The clerk provided inculpatory
testimony against the defendant at his perjury trial.
The extracted statements were shared with US authorities, and could "prove inculpatory
in upcoming proceedings against him," it said.
Salaam denies having uttered the inculpatory
remarks reflected in the
The Court outlined the key procedural protections required for revocation proceedings: written notice of the alleged violation(s) and possible consequences in order to allow the parolee an opportunity to prepare and put on a defense (50); disclosure of inculpatory
evidence; right to present witnesses and documentary evidence; right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses; a neutral and detached hearing body; and a written statement of the decision as well as the evidence relied upon and reasons for revocation.
It is much easier for such a trial to proceed within a context of established facts, the legitimacy of lower-level convictions, and pre-existing inculpatory
testimony, instead of proceeding in a vacuum.
In sum, our interpretation of the common-law forfeiture rule is supported by (1) the most natural reading of the language used at common law; (2) the absence of common-law cases admitting prior statements on a forfeiture theory when the defendant had not engaged in conduct designed to prevent a witness from testifying; (3) the common law's uniform exclusion of unconfronted inculpatory
testimony by murder victims (except testimony given with awareness of impending death) in the innumerable cases in which the defendant was on trial for killing the victim, but was not shown to have done so for the purpose of preventing testimony; (4) a subsequent history in which the dissent's broad forfeiture theory has not been applied.