Federal Rule of Evidence

Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5) provides a fifth exception to the general rule prohibiting the admission of hearsay evidence where the declarant is unavailable, allowing the following kind of statement:

A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; (C) the general purpose of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence. However, a statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent of it makes known to the adverse party sufficiently in advance of the trial or hearing to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, his intention

. . .
penal interest even though no such exception was mentioned in the Evidence Code at that time. This decision was cited with approval in the legislative history of Section 1200, when the current code was being drafted in the middle 1960s. Indeed, the legislative history of this section reveals that the California Law Revision Commission originally intended to follow the lead of the Uniform Rules of Evidence and limit exceptions to those enumerated in the proposed evidence code. However, it reversed itself in July 1964 and decided to allow the judiciary to continue developing new exceptions to the hearsay rule. In its final recommendations, the Commission stated that the Code was not intended to "stifle all court development of the law of evidence….[but] is deliberately framed to permit the courts to work out particular problems to extend declared principles into new areas of the law. As a general rule, the code permits the courts to work toward greater admissibility of evidence but does not permit the courts to develop additional exclusionary rules." Even with this interpretation of Section 1200, California courts have been reluctant to add exceptions to the hearsay rule beyond those enumerated in the Code. In fact, sin
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Fifth Circuit, Confrontation Clause, Rules Evidence, Idaho Wright, Rule Evidence, County Alabama, Santa Barbara, Pretrial Notice, Supreme Court, Social Security, residual exceptions, hearsay rule, hearsay evidence, residual exception, common law, guarantees trustworthiness, hearsay statement, rules evidence, supreme court, court admitted, circumstances surrounding statement, exceptions hearsay rule, particularized guarantees trustworthiness, exception hearsay rule, court admitted affidavit,
Approximate Word count = 5109
Approximate Pages = 20 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Federal Rule of Evidence