Impeachment, Hearsay, Privileges, and Burdens of Proof

Question 1: Hearsay 

In evidence law, hearsay refers to an out of court statement made in court or in a court-related matter as proof that a certain material event took place. In most cases, hearsay evidence is inadmissible in criminal law except in cases where the making of a statement amounts to a criminal offense (Posner, 2015). In the instant case study, the evidence being offered by Luigi "the Pipe" Cardone amounts to a complex form of hearsay known as double hearsay. Double hearsay can be defined as evidence given by a witness who claims to have witnessed something which in itself would be considered as hearsay (Duhaime's Law Dictionary, n.d.). The admissibility test of double hearsay is if both instances of hearsay are admissible. Cardone’s evidence would only be hearsay if he heard a statement that would be admissible under circumstances that would make Cardone’s evidence of having heard it admissible. In the case study, Cardone heard from Big Sal Salvatore who had heard from Frankie “the Lip” Bonnano about a murder hence the evidence relates to an act and not speech. The only admissible evidence herein would be from Bonnanzo since Salvatore’s evidence amounts to hearsay. Based on that fact alone, Carpone’s evidence amounts to double hearsay and cannot be admissible in any court of law. 

Question Two: Privileged Communication 

Privileged communication is a provision of the law of evidence that enables individuals to communicate candidly with certain professionals without fear that the information shared with the professionals will be revealed to third parties. Under the privileged communication rule, a professional cannot be compelled to give information about a client without the express permission of the client. However, privileged communication rules only apply to certain professionals in America when it comes to criminal cases. In federal cases, attorney-client privilege and doctor-patient are factored while Certified Public Accountant (CPA)-client privilege is factored in a majority of states (Rosenthal, 2010). Tommy "Two Toes" D’Natalia is facing a racketeering charge and is seeking to prohibit testimony about the same from his CPA. The instant scenario provides a gray area for D’Natalia . Based on the admissibility of his CPA’s evidence. If D’Natalia is being charged under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, then the case shall be tried under federal laws and the CPA can be compelled to testify. However, if D’Natalia is being charged under state laws, the admissibility of the CPA’s evidence depends on the state where the criminal case is being undertaken. There is a high chance that under state law, the CPA’s evidence is not admissible. 

Question Three: Best Evidence Rule 

The best evidence rule is a rule that prioritizes evidence depending on its strength in a court of law. The rule mainly applies in documentary evidence but can also be extended to witness statements. It is based on the case of Omychund v Barker (1745) 1 Atk, 21, 49; 26 ER 15, 33 where the court held that where ideal evidence cannot be obtained, the court should rely on the best available evidence (Kean & McKeown, 2014). For example, an original document has higher evidentially value than any facsimile. On the other hand, a witness who saw something from close proximity has a higher evidentially value than a witness who saw it from afar or heard about it. In the instant case study, Bertram "Bugsy" Bertoli is suspected of killing a store owner during a robbery. The act was witnessed by two abettors to the killing being Lawrence ‘Lucky’ Livorno and Little Carmine D’Angelo. Both Livorno and Angelo agree that it is Bertoli who killed the store owner but the prosecution wants to give immunity against the death penalty to only one of them in exchange for a testimony against Bertoli. Under the best evidence rule, the evidence of Angelo is superior to that of Livorno since the former witnessed the killing from close proximity while the latter witnessed the killing from outside the store and inside a car. Under cross-examination , Livorno might not be able to confirm for a fact that it is Bertoli and not Angelo who made the fatal shot. Angelo should thus be given preference for immunity for testimony deal. 

References 

Duhaime's Law Dictionary. (n.d.). Double hearsay definition. Retrieved from http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/D/DoubleHearsay.aspx 

Keane, A., & McKeown, P. (2014).  The modern law of evidence . New York: Oxford University Press, USA 

Posner, R. A. (2015). On Hearsay. Fordham L. Rev., 84, 1465-1471 

Rosenthal, J., JD. (2010, June 7). The accountant-client privilege: Does it exist? Retrieved from https://www.aicpastore.com/Content/media/PRODUCER_CONTENT/Newsletters/Articles_2010/CPA/Jun/AccountantClientPrivilege.jsp