|
IMDB rating: 8.10 Plot: Esteemed criminal lawyer Sir Wilfrid Robarts has just returned to practice after suffering a heart attack and is supposed to be on a diet of bland civil suits. But the case of Leonard Vole, a charmer accused of murdering a rich middle-aged widow, proves irresistible — particlularly when Sir Wilfrid meets the accused’s wife, the remarkable Christine Vole. Christine will appear as a witness: not the defense, but for the prosecution. |
i get this movie here Witness for the Prosecution
Actors: Power Tyrone,Laughton Charles,Williams John,Daniell Henry,Wolfe Ian,Thatcher Torin,Compton Francis,Tonge Philip,Farnum Franklyn,Kenny Colin,Drama,Thriller,Mystery,
Case holding testimony from criminal trial can be used as against interest of party opponent in civil trial?
I am Federal Court her and I’m dealing with Fed Rule of Evidence 801. I am P and I want to offer my D’s testimony from a previous criminal prosecution against him. There was a conspiracy to commit fraud-like acts and my current D turned state’s witness on his co-conspirators and testified that he was engaged in a conspiracy to commit fraud-like acts. Now I’m suing him civilly for those acts and I want to admit his testimony against him as a party-opponent admission under not excluded as hearsay under 801. I know I can do this but I want a Federal case with similar facts where it was done. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Thank you in advance.
Note: there is no kind of legal advice being given or requested or received here. This is just about people helping people find cases that might help them do whatever it is they’re doing.
Thank you for your response, Richard.
The thing is that I don’t want to call the defendant to the stand so I want to use 802(2)(a) as you suggest. I was just hoping someone could point me to a case with similar facts to mine (previous criminal trial where current defendant was a witness but not a defendant, current civil trial, federal court) so that I have some concrete backup on this.
Again, thank you for your response and I will definitely mark it as the ‘best answer’ unless someone else miraculously comes along with a response of the specificity that I’m indicating now that I need.
This is such a clear cut issue that you probably won’t find case law on it, because there is no legal debate that a court would need to issue a published opinion on.
In a civil case he has no protection against self-incrimination. You simply call him to the stand and ask him the same questions that he was asked in the criminal trial. If he gives a different answer than he did in that trial then his testimony is admissible as a prior inconsistent statement, and he also faces criminal charges for perjury.
While you ‘could’ also seek to admit his testimony under 801(2)(a) – which would also be a clear cut issue because the language of the rule is perfectly clear in itself – live testimony is always preferable.
Richard
rickinnocal | Jan 05, 2010
Tags: 1957, Compton Francis, Daniell Henry, Drama, Farnum Franklyn, Kenny Colin, Laughton Charles, Mystery, Power Tyrone, Thatcher Torin, Thriller, Tonge Philip, Williams John, Wolfe Ian