Reference no: EM131233131

Provide responses of 150-250 words to the below:

1. In this situation of the women's encounter with her ex-husband, whom she has a restraining order against, and her sending a picture with text messages to a law enforcement friend, I believe the photograph and text messages would be considered non-testimonial and should be admitted into evidence at trial. It all depends on the intent of the woman. "If the out-of-court statement was made for the primary purpose of establishing some fact for "future prosecutorial use" then the statement counts as testimony under the Confrontation Clause" (Field, 2012). I think the woman was merely asking for assistance from an officer for an emergency situation. "Calls to 911 and similar statements to law enforcement which, when viewed objectively, have as their primary purpose to enable law enforcement to respond to an ongoing emergency are not testimonial in nature" (Judicial Education Center, 2016). Because of this, it is not required for the women to be in court in order to be cross-examined as laid out in the Sixth Amendment. I believe the informality of the situation is a major determining factor. Out-of-court testimonial statements are, in nature, more official or more formal communications. The photograph and text messages were informal.

In reference to the scripture, Deuteronomy 19:15, "One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses" (NIV 1984). I do not believe I would change my answer. These were not just text messages where the woman could be lying about it being her ex-husband. I think because she had a photograph of the man and sent it to someone in real time, the person on the other end was sort of a witness to the incident.

2. Since the woman in this case did not show up for court, the defense was looking to state that the evidence used should be dropped due to the defense not being able to be have the right of face to face confrontation with the witness, which is a violation of the sixth amendment under the confrontational clause. The confrontational clause speaks to the right to have a face to face confrontation with witnesses who are offering testimonial evidence against the accused. (Giannelli, 2012). However, in this incident similar to the one in Davis v. Washington the text message and photograph were being taking to provide information during an ongoing emergency to provide evidence and differs from testimonial evidence. Since testimonial evidence is defined as oral or written assertion offered in a court as proof of truth in course it includes hearsay and testimony. Using the same rational that was used in Davis v. Washington the court should allow the text message and photograph to be admitted into evidence since it was not testimonial and therefore did not violate the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment.

Using the logic of Deuteronomy 19:15 I would keep my answer the same since I believe in this case that there were two credible witnesses. The witnesses being the woman and the law enforcement friend that should kept in communication with. Reading further into Deuteronomy 19:15-21 summarizes that sentencing should never be passed upon the testimony of one witness alone. A false witness should suffer the same punishment which he sought to have inflicted upon the person he accused. This logic is instilled into our criminal justice system today as some of our foundations. As the justice system emphasizes the importance of having enough witnesses or evidence to convict someone of the crime. As well as the importance of having credible witnesses hence going under oath before testifying at a trial.