hypothetical questions what do you think?

Question

I was asked these in one of my classes and thought it would be fun to see what everyone else thinks ?
An innocent person involved in a bank robbery is taken to the hospital and tells the Doctor who the person was that shot her. She then dies. Should the Doctor be able to testify to the identity of the shooter?

Victim is being lead to an interrogation room at the police station and sees man in cuffs being lead down the hallway. Victim begins to scream that that was the same person who attacked her. Later she is unable to pick the same person out of a lineup. is the 1 st ID good ?

Answer 1

In the first example, the defendant would want to have the accuser crossed examined, as is his right, but won't be able to since the person is deceased; also, a clever attorney would claim and probably succeed in objecting under the heresay rule; additionally, credibility and the state of mind of the now deceased witness would be questioned (drug induced, delirious or hallucinating, not in right frame of mind... etc) and put enough doubts in a jury. I am not familiar with the technicality of deathbed testimony but I am under the impression that more than one witness must be present and certain other circumstances must be met (knowing that she's dying, being of sound mind, etc).

The second example can be argued that the "witness" was prejudiced by the sight of the handcuffs and argue, furthermore, that the proof is in the inability to identify the same person in a lineup.

Good question! Thumbs up for you!

Answer 2

The first scenario is legally known as Heresay evidence. While the doctor would be permitted to testify, his testimony would be considered less reliable than a witness that had actually been present at the crime, since his knowledge is secand hand only - though there is weight given to the fact that it is DeathBed testimony.

The second scenario is harder, since being able to identify the suspect in a line up, or later on would be very important - the judge might not allow this witness, if defense objected to the witness testifying.

Answer 3

First question - yes as it was a dying declaration although it would definitely be challenged and depending on the circumstances, witness character, etc could be tossed.

Second question - first ID would be good especially if the suspect was still wearing the same clothing etc and then was dressed differently during the lineup. Alot of factors to consider with this one but I'd push it nonetheless.

Answer 4

If testimony is flip flopping, it is uncredible and useless.Besides, if the victim dies after telling the doctor who shot her, how can the same person be interrogated by the police?

Answer 5

1. "Dying declarations" are admissible as long the victim knows that they are going to die. I don't know if they have to me made to a police officer though.

2. The second scenario is similar to an "on scene" identification, so I imagine it'd be acceptable.

Answer 6

the First the answer is yes:, because Doctor/Patient Privlege ends when the patient dies.
the 2nd answer is: She can flip flop all she wants... Until shes in the Witness Stand!