Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Bourjaily v. United States (Brief). Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 3 page paper evaluates a case regarding the hearsay rule and exceptions in this Supreme Court case. The case involves a drug transaction. The sixth amendment is referenced in the context of the case. No additional sources cited.
Page Count:
3 pages (~225 words per page)
File: RT13_SA408One.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
certain evidence should be construed as hearsay or allowed to be admitted as evidence. The facts of the case involve a man by the name of Bourjaily who was found
by police engaging in a drug transaction in a parking lot. What occurred was that the defendant received cocaine from a man named Lonardo. The amount was not large enough
to be aligned with a dealing charge. However, it is not the transfer of drugs which became an issue but whether or not what some may construe as hearsay could
be admitted to support the charges. The cellular telephone conversations in which he had participated had become a point of contention. His defense attorneys claimed that the conversations amounted
to hearsay. The prosecution feels that the evidence is admissible because a conspiracy had been established. However, it is also the case that the conversations were necessary in order for
the prosecution to establish the alleged conspiracy. In fact, "the court held that Lonardos out-of-court statements satisfied Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) and were not hearsay." Decision of the
Court: The Supreme Court found that the telephone conversations were permissible under Federal evidence rules. The opinion was delivered by Chief Justice Rehnquist. Reasoning of the Court: The court claims
that a conspiracy had been discovered between Bourjaily and Lonardo and this permitted the conversation to be construed as evidence. The rule was that the government had to establish a
preponderance of the evidence in order to support the claim that there was a conspiracy. In this case, that had been sufficiently established. Hence, the conversations were not viewed as
hearsay, but rather as part of a well researched abundance of materials that points to the guilt of the defendant. Citations to Support the Judgment: Winship, 397 U.S. 358
...