Themis
Registered User
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2008
- Messages
- 2,284
- Reaction score
- 0
Really appreciate the feedback and sorry this reply took so long due to business travel.Just I believe TB is actualy the spokeperson for JB's firm only. Just because KC is a client of JB and TB is speaking publicly about her case, doesn't make his statements those of a "party opponent." I believe the rule is based on stmts actually out of the mouth of the party opponent themselves, otherwise TB and any other person making stmts on behalf of any defendant (or party to a lawsuit for that matter) could potentially invoke the 5th if called to testify. Also, if TB was ever questioned about it, his answers would be that he was never privy to any atty-clt discussions (...would create a waiver of the privilege if it did happen).
I just think TB is merely an inexperienced PR guy (and that is really stretching it after reading his pressers) and what he said was maybe his own personal opinion slipping out ... or just his own idiocy (OF COURSE, THIS PART IS MY OWN OPINION).
Anyway, most states rules of evidence are patterned after or very similar to Federal Rules of Evidence. FRE, Rule 801(d)(2)(C) provides that a statement by an agent authorized to speak on behalf of the party opponent is a vicarious admission which can be attributed to the party opponent. The declarant must be specifically authorized by the party to speak for the party, for example, the party's attorney. One additional agency step would have the same results: a PR firm speaking for the defendant's attorney.
FRE, Rule 801(d)(2)(D) provides a departure from the common law. Where a statement is made by an agent or employee of the party, and the statement concerns a matter within the scope of the declarant's employment, and the statement is made while the employment relationship between the declarant and the party exists, then the statement made by the agent (or the agent's agent -- attorney's PR rep) may be attributed to the party opponent.
FRE 801(d)(2)(E) allows for vicarious attribution to a party opponent for an out-of-court statement made by a person who is shown to be a co-conspirator. This co-conspirator statement must be made while the conspiracy exists and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
All of these are exceptions to hearsay. They have indicia of reliability and can be admitted as evidence to prove the existence of a fact. IMHO, 801(d)(2)(C) would apply to the PR guy's statement and can be used to show that there was a loss of life of the little girl, Caylee and defense/defendant knows it. First assertion is clear; that there was a loss of life. Second assertion re knowledge is certainly argueable. IMHO. Thanks for the feedback and discussion opportunity! :smile: