Image transcription text

Order 363124181 X Content X confrontation clause crawford - S X criminal evidence what is an oral x + X < -> C A Paused i Apps M Gmail YouTube Maps Law Homework W Orders Reading list Based on the Supreme Court's decisions in Crawford and Clark, which of the following statements would violate the confrontation clause of the 6th amendment? O A 911 call reporting the shootings and subsequent hysteria. O Anonymous HateChan posts promoting violence. O LLeader's written messages to Superior through HateChan. O A confidential informant reporting that Leader told the informant that Leader hoped Superior would kill people. QUESTION 11 2 points Save A At trial, Leader testifies that he has never made any derogatory comments about foreigners. As the prosecutor, you want to impeach him using a prior inconsistent statement. Identify the statement and list each question you must ask to properly impeach Leader. For the toolbar, press ALT+F10 (PC) or ALT+FN+F10 (Mac). BIUS Paragraph Arial 10pt A v .. P O WORDS POWERED BY T QUESTION 12 3 points Save A You represent Leader and want to call a psychologist to testify about Superior's state of mind, specificaly the effect of the job rejection on Superior's conduct. The prosecution 363124181-Crimi..docx 363124181-Crimi.docx w 363123883.edited.docx Criminal Evidence.docx Order ID 363123...docx Show all X w P 2:25 PM Type here to search O 68 F Sunny 2/12/2022

... Show more

On June 21, the first day of summer, people gathered to celebrate the summer solstice.  Ascending to the town of Peak's high point, people watched the sun slowly set over the horizon.    Just as the sun set, an unknown female screamed, "He's got a gun!"  Shots rang out.  People scattered.  Vic Tym felt a searing pain rip through Tym's torso.  Tym managed two more steps and collapsed dead, uttering, "I've been hit." Asia Minor, seven years old, was walking with her mom to Peak's high point when the shooting started.  She looked up to see a mob of people charging at her.  She yelled, "Mom," and grabbed her mom but it was too late.  The fleeing mob knocked her over and trampled her to death. Other than Tym and Minor, twenty more were injured by the shooting or the ensuing hysteria.

Local, state and federal police quickly arrived on the scene and restored order but not before shooting and killing the initial shooter.  They identified the dead shooter as I.M. Superior.  Further investigation revealed Superior was an avowed White Nationalist.  On his Instagram page, Superior posted gun photos and various memes depicting his viewpoints.  His last post occurred twenty-four hours prior to the June 21 shooting.  It warned that the time had come for the Aryan race to take action.  He said that he would lead the way. 

The investigation also uncovered a HateChan profile for Superior.  Investigators found Superior had become "radicalized" through his participation in various HateChan chat rooms.  HateChan was created for and used by people who held a similar view that the Aryan race needed protecting from society at large.  People on the site routinely complained about their circumstances and blamed the situation on immigration and all other ethnic groups. Often these conversations talked of violence.  One post, made by Emmy Grant, proclaimed that "All non-white people are not real Americans and should be sent back where they came from."  Over time, the site gained worldwide members, topping one million individual accounts.  In the last six months, worldwide, HateChan members initiated four different mass shootings that resulted in 53 deaths.  After each shooting, HateChan's public affairs office released a statement condemning the use of violence and that their primary goal is to give people a place to speak their minds.

One user, in particular, seemed to stoke the flames.  Harry N. Leader, HateChan's founder, had quickly identified Superior as someone searching for something.  Using the same board Superior used, Leader posted a collection of self-produced videos discussing how the Aryan race was becoming more and more oppressed.  The videos encouraged those watching to take action in their home towns.  Leader also sent personal messages to Superior encouraging Superior to act on behalf of the Aryan race.  One message said that "White people must stand up for their God-given rights and not allow any foreigners to get in their way."  Never, however, did Leader promote violent action.  Instead, he remained vague about specific action.

Superior was a lonely and tormented soul.  He had just graduated from a university and was looking for work.  He received rejection after rejection.  His parents had cut off their support because they believed he was not trying hard enough to find a job.  One particular rejection stung Superior.  He thought he had a good shot at the position but was rejected at the last minute.  When he went to the office to find an explanation, he found that the company had hired someone from South America.  When he complained to a local bartender, the bartender told Superior about HateChan.  The next morning, while recovering from his drinking, he created a HateChan account. Days later, he received his first message from Leader.

With Superior killed at the scene and the local populace demanding law enforcement action, the local prosecutor decided to prosecute Harry N. Leader on two counts of Murder in the First Degree.  To make a case for murder, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that:

  1. Superior killed a person
  2. After deliberation (defined as cool reflection on the matter for any period of time, no matter how brief)
  3. Leader, with the purpose of promoting the commission of Murder in the First Degree, aided or attempted to aid Superior in the planning or the commission of the offense.

Answer & Explanation
Verified Solved by verified expert

Leader also sent personal messages to Superior encouraging Superior to act on behalf of the Aryan race.  One message said that "White people must stand up for their God-given rights and not allow any foreigners to get in their way."


Statement made by leader in the past appears in a personal message that  Leader sent to Superior in which he said that:-
" White people must stand up for their God-given rights and not allow any foreigners to get in their way."


Step-by-step explanation

Cross-examination of witnesses called by the opposing party is an absolute right in both civil and criminal cases. It usually consists of two kinds of questions -- (1) those designed to bring out additional facts and details about the events that were not brought out during the direct examination, and (2) those intended to raise questions about the credibility of the witness. Admissibility of the first kind is governed by ordinary rules of relevancy. The second category is known as "impeachment," and has its own set of rules.
Any party may impeach the credibility of any witness with evidence suggesting that the witness's direct testimony is unworthy of belief. A witness's testimony may be unreliable for three quite different reasons:
a) The witness may be deliberately lying and therefore knowingly committing the crime of perjury -- it happens, but people willing to commit crimes in front of judges are rare.
 b) More likely, the witness is trying to tell the truth, but happens to be mistaken because he or she saw the event incorrectly, has forgotten parts, misinterpreted what the witness saw, etc. 
c) The witness may be telling half-truths, exaggerating parts, or omitting details out of embarrassment, love, anger, political beliefs, or other emotions.

 Impeachment does not consist of asking the witness directly to admit to being a cold-blooded liar or to admit that the witness has remembered something incorrectly. The liar will not admit being a liar, and the honest but mistaken witness will not know s/he is mistaken, so neither will admit to being wrong if asked. Impeachment is the process of introducing circumstantial evidence that suggests to the jury a likelihood that the witness does not understand the need to tell the truth, is mistaken, is incomplete, or is lying. Impeachment evidence is subject to the basic principles of relevance, and may be excluded if its probative value on the issue of credibility is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

Impeachment by prior inconsistent statement is used when a witness remembers a fact, but previously made a different statement about that fact. Impeachment by prior inconsistent statement has three basic steps, which have been described in a number of ways. One of the most popular is the "three Cs," confirm, credit, and confront. Alternatively, the three steps have been described as follows: repeat, build up, impeach. Whatever way you choose to remember the three steps of impeachment by prior inconsistent statement, the process is the same. 


Questions to be asked in order to impeach

1. So there is no question in your mind that the statement you gave today is true?

2. Did you ever get in touch with Superior directly? (confront with the various messages thread between the two)

3. Your messages to him seem to talk a lot about Aryan race, is it correct?

4. Do you remember telling Superior in one of your messages to stand up for the God-given rights of Aryans and not allow any foreigners to get in their way?
5. Didn't you say in your testimony today that you have never made any derogatory statement against foreigners?