About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


18 Suffolk J. Trial & App. Advoc. 1 (2013)

handle is hein.journals/sujoriapv18 and id is 1 raw text is: SAY WHAT?? CONFUSION IN THE COURTS OVER WHAT IS THE PROPER STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR HEARSAY RULINGS Todd J Bruno* I. IN TR O D U C T IO N ................................................................................................... 2 II. STANDARD S OF REVIEW ................................................................................ 6 A . D e N ovo ....................................................................................... . . . 8 B . C learly E rroneous ............................................................................. 9 C . A buse of D iscretion ......................................................................... 10 D. Problems with Defining andApplying Standards of Review ............. 13 1. Analyzing the D efinitions ....................................................... 13 2. The Law -Fact D istinction ........................................................ 14 3. Questions of Mixed Law and Fact ........................................... 16 4. Standards of Review as Boilerplates ...................................... 16 III. EVIDENTIARY RULINGS AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW .................................. 18 IV. THE HEARSAY RULE AND THE MULTIPLE LAYERS OF ANALYSIS ...................... 20 V. STANDARDS OF REVIEW IN HEARSAY RULINGS ................................................ 23 A. Confusion in the Sixth and Ninth Circuits ........................................ 24 B. Six Different Standards and Tests in Various Jurisdictions .............. 26 1. A buse of D iscretion ................................................................ 26 2. D e N ovo R eview .................................................................... 29 a. De Novo Review with No Exception - Maryland ............. 30 b. De Novo Review but Recognizing Fact-Finding Deference for Truth of Matter Asserted and Existence of Conspiracy Determinations - Iowa .............. 33 c. De Novo Review but Recognizing Fact Finding in Excited Utterance Exception - D.C. Circuit .................. 37 d. De Novo Review Unless Trial Court Makes Determinations of Trustworthiness - Hawaii ................ 38 3. Hybrid Approach of De Novo Review and Abuse of D iscretion ........................................................................... . . 39 Assistant Professor of Law and Director of Legal Research, Analysis, and Writing, Charleston School of Law.