§ 31.08 CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

• Jurisdiction: United States

§ 31.08. CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

The Due Process Clause may require the admissibility of hearsay in limited circumstances.⁹³ The leading case is Chambers v. Mississippi,⁹⁴ in which the Supreme Court held that state evidentiary rules that precluded the admission of critical and reliable evidence denied the defendant due process. One of the rules in Chambers which made defense evidence inadmissible was the hearsay rule.⁹⁵According to the Court, "In these circumstances, where constitutional rights directly affecting the ascertainment of guilt are implicated, the hearsay rule may not be applied mechanistically to defeat the ends of justice."⁹⁶

The critical point is that the Court found the evidence very reliable and the basis for exclusion unpersuasive. Both conditions significantly limit the scope of any constitutional argument.⁹⁷

--------

Notes:

^[93] See generally Westen, The Compulsory Process Clause, 73 Mich. L. Rev. 71, 149-59 (1974); Clinton, The Right to Present a Defense: An Emergent Constitutional Guarantee in Criminal Trials, 9 Ind. L. Rev. 711 (1976).

^[94] 410 U.S. 284 (1973).

^[95] At that time Mississippi did not have an exception for declarations against penal interests, which was the traditional rule. However, the Federal Rules recognize this exception. See infra § 34.05[B] (discussing declarations against penal interests).

^[96] 410 U.S. at 302. In a later case, the Court again overturned a conviction because the application of the hearsay rule precluded the admission of defense evidence. The Court commented: "Regardless of whether the proffered testimony comes within Georgia's hearsay rule, under the facts of this case its exclusion constituted a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The excluded testimony was highly relevant to a critical issue in the punishment phase of the trial and substantial reasons existed to assume its reliability." Green...