DOCSLIB.ORG

In the Supreme Court of the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the Supreme Court of the United States NO. 18-_____ In the Supreme Court of the United States SHANKER PATEL, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the State of California, Second District Court of Appeals PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI COREY EVAN PARKER, ESQ. COUNSEL OF RECORD LAW OFFICE OF COREY EVAN PARKER 1230 ROSECRANS AVE, SUITE 300 MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 (424) 456-3193 [email protected] MAY 13, 2019 SUPREME COURT PRESS ♦ (888) 958-5705 ♦ BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS i QUESTION PRESENTED Where in sixteen States, including California, whence this present case arises, the law requires cor- roboration of an accomplice’s testimony to sustain a conviction, and When no physical evidence connects a defendant to the crime and the evidence of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is supplied solely by cir- cumstantial evidence, by the trial testimony of an accomplice, and by the out-of-court statements made by another accomplice, and When the defendant requests that the trial court give to the jury a cautionary instruction about the care with which the jury should face accomplice cor- roboration, THE QUESTION HERE PRESENTED IS: Whether a trial court violates the jury trial guarantees of the Sixth Amendment and U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 3 by refusing to grant a defendant’s request that the court instruct the jury that the evidence of accomplices ought to be received with suspicion and with the very greatest care and caution and ought not to be passed upon by the jury under the same rules governing other and apparently credible witnesses. See, e.g., Crawford v. United States, 212 U.S. 183, 204 (1909). ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED .......................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... iv OPINION BELOW ...................................................... 1 JURISDICTION .......................................................... 1 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED ...... 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................... 5 A. In States Where a Person Can Be Convicted of a Crime on the Testimony of an Accomplice Only When Corroborated by Evidence Tending to Connect the Defendant to the Commission of the Crime, It Is an Abridgement of the Jury Trial Guarantees of the Sixth Amendment and U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2, Cl. 3 for a Trial Court to Refuse to Give a Cautionary Instruction When a Defendant Requests It ..................................... 5 B. Evidence of an Accomplice Should Be Received with Great Caution and Scrutin- ized with Great Care and the Lack of an Instruction to That Effect Is Unjust ............... 13 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ....... 28 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 33 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS Opinion of the Court of Appeal of the State of California (November 14, 2018) ......................... 1a Order of the Supreme Court of California Denying Petition for Review (November 13, 2019) ........................................ 45a Abstract of Judgment- Prison Commitment-Indeterminate (March 6, 2017) ................................................. 46a iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Adams v. State, 2003 WY 152, 79 P.3d 526 (Wyo. 2003) ............ 22 Ali v. United States, 581 A.2d 368 (D.C. 1990) .................................. 21 Bacon v. State, 22 Fla. 51 (1889) .................................................. 6 Barco v. Tilton, 694 F.Supp.2d 1122 (C.D. Cal. 2010) ............... 11 Bohnert v. State, 312 Md. 266, 539 A.2d 657 (1988) .................... 17 Bouaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (1987) ........................................... 10 Boykin v. State, 257 So.2d 251 (Fla. 1971) ............................... 8, 25 Brooks v. State, 40 A.3d 346 (Del. 2012) ............................... 14, 21 Brown v. State, 281 Md. 241 (1977) .......................... 13, 14, 17, 23 Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) ........................................... 19 Bryan v. United States, 836 A.2d 581 (D.C. 2003) .................................. 14 Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917) ................................. 10, 15, 22 Coleman-Fuller v. State, 192 Md. App. 577, 995 A.2d 985 (2010) ............ 32 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v. Muna, 2016 MP 10 (2016) ...... 9, 23, 26 Commonwealth v. Brown, 617 Pa. 107, 52 A.3d 1139 (Pa. 2012) ............... 22 Commonwealth v. Rega, 593 Pa. 659, 933 A.2d 997 (Pa. 2007) ............... 15 Commonwealth v. Resende, 476 Mass. 141, 65 N.E.3d 1148 (Mass. 2017) ............................ 20 Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 177 A.3d 136 (Pa. 2018) .................................... 25 Cool v. United States, 409 U.S. 100 (1972) ........................................ 4, 17 Crawford v. United States, 212 U.S. 183 (1909) .................................... passim Dawson v. State, 329 Md. 275, 619 A.2d 111 (1993) ...................... 19 Dennis v. State, 817 So.2d 741 (Fla. 2002) ........................ 8, 14, 25 Dorman v. United States, 491 A.2d 455 (D.C. 1984) .............................. 7, 26 Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415 (1965) ............................................. 19 Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968) ............................................. 3 Evans v. State, 113 Nev. 885, 944 P.2d 253 (Nev. 1997) ........... 21 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page Fallin v. State, 460 Md. 130, 188 A.3d 988, 2018 Md. LEXIS 375, 2018 WL 3410022 (July 12, 2018) .................... 17 Fields v. United States, 396 A.2d 522 (D.C. 1978) .............................. 6, 26 Gaskins v. State, 7 Md. App. 99, 253 A.2d 759 (1969) .................. 32 Holloman v. Commonwealth, 65 Va. App. 147, 775 S.E.2d 434 (Va. App. 2015) ........................ 25 Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) ........................................... 17 Johnson v. Commonwealth, 224 Va. 525, 298 S.E.2d 99 (Va. 1982) ............. 22 Jones v. State, 203 So.3d 600 (Miss. 2016) ......................... 22, 23 Laboa v. Calderon, 224 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2000) ......................... 3, 11 Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530 (1986) ........................................... 19 Linse v. State, 93 Wis. 2d 163, 286 N.W.2d 554 (Wis. 1980) .................. 15, 22, 25 Lowery v. State, 547 N.E.2d 1046 (Ind. 1989) ............................. 21 Luery v. State, 116 Md. 284, 81 A. 681 (1911) .................... 14, 21 M.H. v. State, 382 P.3d 1201 (Alaska Ct. App. 2016) .............. 20 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page MacKool v. State, 365 Ark. 416, 231 S.W.3d 676 (Ark. 2006) ....... 20 Martin v. Commonwealth, 409 S.W.3d 340 (Ky. 2013) ................................ 22 McCoy v. State, 112 A.3d 239 (Del. 2015) ......................... 6, 22, 24 McGowan v. State, 990 So.2d 931 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003) .............. 20 Myers v. State, 43 Fla. 500 (1901) ................................................ 6 Osborne v. State, 54 So.3d 841 (Miss. 2011) ................................. 23 People v. Bowers, 801 P.2d 511 (Colo. 1990) .................................. 24 People v. Cobb, 97 Ill. 2d 465, N.E.2d 31, 74 Ill. Dec. 1 (Ill. 1983) ................ 6, 24 People v. Davis, 28 N.Y.3d 294, 44 N.Y.S.3d 358, 66 N.E.3d 1076 (N.Y. 2016) ................................ 21 People v. Garton, 4 Cal.5th 485 (2018) .............................................. 4 People v. Gomez, 189 Colo. 91, 537 P.2d 297 (Colo. 1975) ........... 14 People v. Lemmon, 456 Mich. 625, 576 N.W.2d 129 (Mich. 1998) ............................ 21 People v. McLaurin, 184 Ill. 2d 58, 703 N.E.2d 11, 234 Ill. Dec. 399 (Ill. 1998) ........ 14 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page People v. Nitti, 8 Ill. 2d 136, 133 N.E.2d 12 (Ill. 1956) ............. 21 People v. Romero, 62 Cal.4th 1 (2015) .............................................. 20 People v. Whalen, 56 Cal.4th 1 (2013) ............................................ 20 People v. Young, 472 Mich. 130, 693 N.W.2d 801 (Mich. 2005) .................. 7, 15, 26 Phillips v. State, 553 P.2d 1037 (Wyo. 1976) ................................ 15 Pittman v. State, 300 Ga. 894, 799 S.E.2d 215 (Ga. 2017) ........... 24 Postelle v. State, 2011 OK CR 30, 267 P.3d 114 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011) .............. 21 Robinson v. State, 303 Ga. 321, 812 S.E.2d 232 (Ga. 2018) ........... 20 Rohl v. State, 64 Wis. 2d 443, 219 N.W.2d 385 (Wis. 1974) .............................. 23 Shiver v. State, 41 Fla. 631 (1899) ................................................ 6 Smith v. State, 436 S.W.3d 353 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) ......... 21, 24 Sparkman v. State, 27 Wis. 2d 92, 133 N.W.2d 776 (Wis. 1965) .............................. 23 State ex rel. Franklin v. McBride, 226 W. Va. 375, 701 S.E.2d 97 (W. Va. 2009) ......................... 7, 27 ix TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page State v. Adams, 194 N.J. 186, 943 A.2d 851 (N.J. 2008) ......................... 7, 15, 26 State v. Barnes, 791 N.W.2d 817 (Iowa 2010) .............................. 20 State v. Bey, 217 Kan. 251, 535 P.2d 881 (Kan. 1975) .......... 21 State v. Briggs, 152 Vt. 531 A.2d 779 (Vt. 1989) ........................ 15 State v. Cabagbag, 127 Haw. 302, 277 P.3d 1027 (Haw. 2012) ....... 14 State v. Dana, 59 Vt. 614, 10 A. 727 (Vt. 1887) ........................... 22 State v. Dunkelberger, 2018 SD 22, 909 N.W.2d 398 (S.D. 2018) ......... 21 State v. Everybodytalksabout,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 7. Access to Justice
    7. Access to Justice Contents Summary 191 Access to justice issues 192 Eligibility to stand trial 194 The test of unfitness 195 Assistance and support 199 Reform of the test 200 Limits on detention 206 Conducting civil litigation 210 Litigation representatives 211 The role of litigation representatives 215 Solicitors’ duties 220 Witnesses 224 Competence 225 Assistance in giving evidence 227 Guidance for judicial officers 231 Forensic procedures 232 Jury service 234 Juries in the Federal Court 236 Qualification to serve on a jury 237 Assistance for jurors 239 Jury secrecy 240 Summary 7.1 This chapter discusses issues concerning decision-making ability that have implications for access to justice. Persons with disability may be involved in court processes in a number of different roles, including as parties and witnesses in criminal and civil proceedings. 7.2 In this chapter, the ALRC examines a range of Commonwealth laws and legal frameworks affecting people involved in court proceedings. 1 The issues discussed affect people as: 1 The issues discussed in this chapter do not arise in the same way in tribunal proceedings, which involve merits review of government decisions, and are generally less formal and adversarial than in the courts. There is no equivalent, for example, of rules about the competency of witnesses: see Matthew Groves, ‘Do Administrative Tribunals Have to Be Satisfied of the Competence of Parties Before Them?’ (2013) 20 Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 133. 192 Equality, Capacity and Disability in Commonwealth Laws · defendants in criminal proceedings—the concept of unfitness to stand trial; · parties to civil proceedings—the appointment and role of litigation representatives; · witnesses in criminal or civil proceedings—giving evidence as a witness, and consenting to the taking of forensic samples; and · potential jurors—qualification for jury service.
    [Show full text]
  • Notary Public Information
    Department of Financial Institutions State of Wisconsin Notary Public Information Last updated May 2020 DFI/NOT/102-P(R04/18) Dear Notary Public: This notary public brochure will help you become familiar with the duties and responsibilities of a notary public. It includes requirements and directions for the commission application, sample jurats and answers to common questions about the role of the notary. We would also like to recommend that you take the free online notary public educational tutorial course. The tutorial includes specific instructions for and examples of the proper execution of notarial acts, knowledge quizzes and a final assessment exam. These aids are designed to enable you to feel confident in your performance of your duties as a notary public. The tutorial is available online at: www.wdfi.org Although the brochure and tutorial discuss in detail your duties as a notary, we encourage you to contact Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions (WDFI) if you have additional questions concerning your responsibilities as a public officer. We are here to assist you in any way that we can. Mail Address: Street Address: Notary Section Notary Section WI Department of Financial Institutions WI Department of Financial Institutions PO Box 7847 4822 Madison Yards Way, North Tower Madison WI 53707 Madison WI 53705 Phone: 608-266-8915 Fax: 608-264-7965 Email: [email protected] TTY: 711 Website: www.wdfi.org 2 Table of Contents General Information Pages 4 – 7 Powers & Liabilities Pages 7 – 9 Notarial Acts Pages 9 – 10 Notarial Ceremonies Pages 11 – 15 Maintenance Pages 15 – 17 Statutory References Pages 17 3 General Information What is a Notary Public? A notary public is an individual issued an appointment by the Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions to serve the public as an impartial witness, performing notarial acts as are allowed or required by law.
    [Show full text]
  • Governor's Reference Manual for Notaries
    Notaries in Special Positions GOVERNOR'S REFERENCE MANUAL FOR NOTARIES 23 Government Employees as Notaries Public government agency, i.e., state, county, or municipal, Ais authorized to pay the cost of securing a notary commission for one or more of its employees. Such cost is deemed to be an expense of the agency. See sections 116.35 and 116.36, Florida Statutes. Based upon research and interpretation of the applicable laws, the following statements reflect the position of the Governor’s Notary Section regarding government employees who are notaries: I Although the government agency pays for the commission, it is the employee who is the appointed notary public, not the agency. Such employee-notary is a notary public 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for the entire 4-year term of appointment, unless the notary dies, resigns, or is suspended or removed from office by the Governor or the Florida Senate. I The government agency may set regulations regarding the use of the notary’s commission during the employee-notary’s regular business hours. I All fees collected by the employee-notary for notary services rendered during business hours belong to the government agency, pursuant to sections 116.35—116.38. The government agency has the authority to set the notary fees to be charged by that agency for its notary services to the public, but such fees may not exceed the allowable fees specified in Chapter 117, Florida Statutes. I The employee-notary may perform notarial acts outside his employment and may charge fees for those notary services not exceeding the fees set by law.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ethical Limits of Discrediting the Truthful Witness
    Marquette Law Review Volume 99 Article 4 Issue 2 Winter 2015 The thicE al Limits of Discrediting the Truthful Witness: How Modern Ethics Rules Fail to Prevent Truthful Witnesses from Being Discredited Through Unethical Means Todd A. Berger Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Courts Commons, and the Evidence Commons Repository Citation Todd A. Berger, The Ethical Limits of Discrediting the Truthful Witness: How Modern Ethics Rules Fail to Prevent Truthful Witnesses from Being Discredited Through Unethical Means, 99 Marq. L. Rev. 283 (2015). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol99/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ETHICAL LIMITS OF DISCREDITING THE TRUTHFUL WITNESS: HOW MODERN ETHICS RULES FAIL TO PREVENT TRUTHFUL WITNESSES FROM BEING DISCREDITED THROUGH UNETHICAL MEANS TODD A. BERGER* Whether the criminal defense attorney may ethically discredit the truthful witness on cross-examination and later during closing argument has long been an area of controversy in legal ethics. The vast majority of scholarly discussion on this important ethical dilemma has examined it in the abstract, focusing on the defense attorney’s dual roles in a criminal justice system that is dedicated to searching for the truth while simultaneously requiring zealous advocacy even for the guiltiest of defendants. Unlike these previous works, this particular Article explores this dilemma from the perspective of the techniques that criminal defense attorney’s use on cross-examination and closing argument to cast doubt on the testimony of a credible witness.
    [Show full text]
  • Would I Lie to You? (An Examination of Eyewitness Testimony in a Criminal Trial) Judge Penelope Wass SC
    Would I lie to you? (an examination of eyewitness testimony in a criminal trial) Judge Penelope Wass SC Legal Aid Conference June 2016 CONTENTS PAGE Memory and Reliability Introduction 2 Stages of Memory 2 (i) Encoding 2 (ii) Retention and Storage 3 (iii) Retrieval 3 Limits on Memory Acquisition 3 Estimator Variables 8 False Memories 9 Flashbulb Memories 10 System Variables and the Misinformation Effect 12 Implications of the Misinformation effect 14 Factors that Increase Susceptibility to Misinformation Effect 15 The Effect of the Passage of Time on Memory 15 Witness Stress 16 Weapons Focus 17 Exposure Duration 18 Distance Effect 18 The Effects of Eyewitness evidence on Judges 18 Legal Authorities Regarding Memory Reliability 19 Is a jury assisted by expert evidence or by directions? 23 Deception Versus Unreliability 25 Introduction 25 Physiological Responses 25 Non-Verbal Behaviour or Demeanour 26 Is Demeanour Reliable? 27 1 Memory and Reliability Introduction Notwithstanding what the Courts have said since before Federation, one of the greatest misconceptions we continue to have about memory is that it is largely an accurate recorder, faithfully transposing into our brain events as they occur. From a witness’ point of view, it is important to remember that whilst we often doubt the memories of others, we rarely question our own. However, all witnesses, no matter how seemingly reliable and honest, are accessing changing or changeable data. The process of experiencing or acquiring, laying down or storing memory and then reproducing an account, all of which is involved in “recalling or “remembering”, and therefore giving evidence in a criminal trial, is disconcertingly malleable.
    [Show full text]
  • Opening Brief
    IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND September Term 2019 No. 1253 IN RE: S.B. On Appeal from the Circuit Court for Baltimore City (Hon. Emanuel Brown, presiding) BRIEF OF APPELLANT PAUL B. DEWOLFE NICOLAS Y. RILEY * Office of the Public Defender Assigned Public Defender 6 St. Paul Street, Suite 1400 Institute for Constitutional Advocacy Baltimore, MD 2102 & Protection Georgetown University Law Center 600 New Jersey Ave. NW Washington, DC 20001 202-662-9042 [email protected] * Admitted pursuant to Rule 19-217. March 9, 2020 Counsel for Appellant TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................ i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................. ii STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................................................................. 1 QUESTIONS PRESENTED ................................................................................................. 3 STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................... 4 A. July 2018: Adjudication Hearing Before Magistrate ............................................. 4 B. State’s First Exception ............................................................................................... 9 C. February 2019: Hearing Before Magistrate On Remand ................................... 10 D. State’s Second Exception ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Check 10 Key Points in the Will
    Check 10 key points in the Will Key Points to Check How to Check & How it Affects Paperwork, Related Testimony, etc. 1. Was the will validly Attested Will. See requirements in Texas Estates Code (“EC”) §251.051): executed? Except as otherwise provided by law, a last will and testament must be: (1) in writing; (2) signed by: (A) the testator in person; or (B) another person on behalf of the testator: (i) in the testator’s presence; and (ii) under the testator’s direction; and (3) attested by two or more credible witnesses who are at least 14 years of age and who subscribe their names to the will in their own handwriting in the testator’s presence. Remember that according to EC §251.105, “[a] signature on a self-proving affidavit is considered a signature to the will if necessary to prove that the will was signed by the testator or witnesses or both, except that, in that case, the will may not be considered a self-proved will.” In addition, a will could be valid with only one “witness” plus a notary who witnessed the signing of the will. Holographic will. “Notwithstanding Section 251.051, a will written wholly in the testator’s handwriting is not required to be attested by subscribing witnesses.” EC §251.052. What if the “will” is not validly executed? If a purported will was not validly executed – either as a valid attested will or as a valid holographic will – none of the rest of this list is relevant because an invalidly executed will cannot be probated.
    [Show full text]
  • RULES of EVIDENCE Title 4. Witnesses and Evidence (Chapters 47-56)
    RULES OF EVIDENCE Watching out for the Potholes on the Road to the TRUTH -The Nevada Rules of Evidence Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. -John Adams All decisions in the criminal justice system must be determined by the physical and scientific evidence, and the credible testimony corroborated by that evidence, not in response to public outcry. -Robert P. McCulloch A select tour thought the Nevada Rules of Evidence Title 4. Witnesses and Evidence (Chapters 47-56) Chapter 47 General Provisions; Judicial Notice; Presumptions General Provisions 47.020. Scope of Title 4 of NRS 1. This title governs proceedings in the courts of this State and before magistrates, except: (a) To the extent to which its provisions are relaxed by a statute or procedural rule applicable to the specific situation; and (b) As otherwise provided in subsection 3. 2. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 1, the provisions of chapter 49 of NRS with respect to privileges apply at all stages of all proceedings. 3. The other provisions of this title, except with respect to provisions concerning a person with limited English proficiency, do not apply to: (a) Issuance of warrants for arrest, criminal summonses and search warrants. (b) Proceedings with respect to release on bail. (c) Sentencing, granting or revoking probation. (d) Proceedings for extradition. 4. As used in this section, “person with limited English proficiency” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 1.510. 1 47.030.
    [Show full text]
  • Demeanor Credibility
    Catholic University Law Review Volume 49 Issue 4 Summer 2000 Article 2 2000 Demeanor Credibility James P. Timony Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation James P. Timony, Demeanor Credibility, 49 Cath. U. L. Rev. 903 (2000). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol49/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES DEMEANOR CREDIBILITY HonorableJames P. Timony INTRODUCTION Tony: Why are you arresting me? Sheriff: Because we think you shot the store clerk. Tony: I shot the store clerk!!! Sheriff: You shot the store clerk? Tony: I shot the store clerk!!! Sheriff: I knew you'd confess.! Witnesses may use irony or sarcasm to convey their meaning. Unfor- tunately, the written transcript cannot reflect all of the subtleties of a witness, such as an inflection of voice or a particular gesture that may completely change the meaning of the testimony. Often the sincerity of the witness may be observed only from the way the witness sounds or looks.2 When the sheriff accused him of shooting the clerk, Tony ex- + Chief Administrative Law Judge, Federal Trade Commission. B.S., 1954, Ohio University; LLB, 1959, Georgetown University Law Center; LLM, 1961, Georgetown University Law Cen- ter. The views expressed by the author are his own and are not intended to reflect any agency position. 1.
    [Show full text]
  • ARIZONA Notary Public Reference Manual
    New Web Application Available ARIZONA Notary Public Reference Manual August 2018 Arizona Secretary of State’s Office Business Services Division 1700 W. Washington St., 7th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Arizona Notary Public Reference Manual About this publication >> This is the Arizona Notary Public Reference Manual. It has been previously referred to in law as the Arizona Notary Public Handbook. It is a publication of the Department of State, Office of the Secretary of State, Business Services Division. This manual may be reproduced for private use. It A message from Secretary of State Michele Reagan shall not be used or reproduced for commercial am pleased to present to you the 2018 edition of the Arizona Notary Public Reference purposes. Manual. Our office has received a lot of positive feedback about this manual since it was © 2018 ver. 08-3-2018 I updated several years ago. We understand there is always room for improvement, and we’ve listened to your suggestions. The office strives for accuracy in our publications. If you find Based on notary’s responses we have revised this manual once again to include even more con- an error, please contact us at (602) 542-6187. cise explanations of Arizona Notary law and simplified the section with your duties as a public Disclaimer >> official and commission. The Office cannot offer legal Be on Target, Key to Success, and How it Works sections give quick and helpful explanations. The advice or otherwise offer recommendations on Penalty whistle immediately informs you about compliance and possible penalties a notary may document preparation. The receive under Arizona law.
    [Show full text]
  • Has the Residual Exception Swallowed the Hearsay Rule?
    Has the Residual Exception Swallowed the Hearsay Rule? David A. Sonenshein* & Ben Fabens-Lassen** I. INTRODUCTION In 1982, Professor David Sonenshein was one of the first scholars to analyze the growing body of case law applying the residual exception to the hearsay rule.1 His Article—The Residual Exceptions to the Federal Hearsay Rule: Two Exceptions in Search of a Rule (hereinafter “Residual Exceptions”)—provided a step-by-step analysis of the elements of the residual exception.2 Residual Exceptions surveyed and critiqued the early prevailing interpretations of the rule and demonstrated a growing trend where courts were endorsing interpretations of the exception in a manner inconsistent with the original intent and purpose of the rule. In Residual Exceptions, Professor Sonenshein argued, and some courts agreed,3 that the federal courts “have neither interpreted nor applied the * David A. Sonenshein is the Jack E. Feinberg Professor of Litigation at the Temple University Beasley School of Law. ** Ben Fabens-Lassen received a J.D. from the Temple University Beasley School of Law, where he was Editor-in-Chief of the Temple Law Review. He is currently a law clerk at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 1. David A. Sonenshein, The Residual Exceptions to the Federal Hearsay Rule: Two Exceptions in Search of a Rule, 57 N.Y.U. L. REV. 867 (1982) [hereinafter Residual Exceptions]. For later discussions of the residual exception(s), see Joseph W. Rand, The Residual Exceptions to the Federal Hearsay Rule: The Futile and Misguided Attempt to Restrain Judicial Discretion, 80 GEO.
    [Show full text]
  • Credibility Rules Consistently Harm Refugees
    \\jciprod01\productn\B\BIN\30-1\BIN101.txt unknown Seq: 1 2-APR-12 10:24 SEARCHING FOR THE KEY IN THE WRONG PLACE: WHY “COMMON SENSE” CREDIBILITY RULES CONSISTENTLY HARM REFUGEES James P. Eyster* I. INTRODUCTION ............................................ 3 R II. THE ROLE OF CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS ............................................. 6 R III. THE ROLE OF CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS IN ASYLUM HEARINGS ................................................ 10 R A. The United Nations.................................... 11 R B. The United States ...................................... 13 R C. Australia .............................................. 22 R D. Canada ............................................... 24 R E. United Kingdom....................................... 25 R IV. ALTERNATE STANDARDS FOR CREDIBILITY ............... 28 R A. Criminal Defendants .................................. 29 R B. Crime Victims ......................................... 31 R V. PSYCHOLOGICAL INSIGHTS INTO MEMORY AND CREDIBILITY .............................................. 34 R A. Inconsistency of Memory .............................. 34 R B. The Inaccuracy of Credibility Assessments ............. 38 R C. The Effect of Trauma on Memory, Testimony, and Credibility ............................................. 40 R VI. JUSTIFYING THE PRIMACY OF A FLAWED TEST ............ 41 R A. Answering the Easy Question, Rather Than the Hard One ................................................... 42 R B. Protecting Judges from Moral Responsibility
    [Show full text]