POLS 4720 Lecture 16: 16
5 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
-In a similar case, Davis v. Washington, the Court held that the statements are non-
testimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances
objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police
assistance to meet an ongoing emergency (Oyez, 2006). Also, because Sue was informing
the police about the events as they were happening, any reasonable person would think
that Sue was facing an ongoing emergency. Because Sue called the police to enable
police assistance, her call is acting as a witness, not a testifying. Her call is not
testimonial and can be used in court even though she refuses to testify.
- An elementary school teacher notices some bruises on a seven year old boy. The teacher asks
the boy how he got the bruises and the boy replies that his mother’s boyfriend hits him when he
misbehaves. He tells the teacher that he prefers the hits to being locked in a closet which also
happens sometimes. The teacher reports the abuse to the police. Can the statements made by the
boy to the teacher be admitted in court?
-This case is similar to Ohio v Clark. In Ohio v Clark and this case, the statement of a
child to his teachers are not testimonial because under the totality of the circumstances,
the reason the child spoke to the teacher wasn’t to create an out of court substitute for
trial testimony (Oyez, 2015). Because the child had visible bruises, the teachers
questioned the child in order to protect him. Also, because the child is young and does
not understand how the criminal justice system works in detail, the child is most likely
not speaking in the goal of creating evidence. In Ohio v Clark, the court held that a
mandatory reporting statute doesn’t convert a conversation between a concerned teacher
and a student into a law enforcement mission aimed primarily at gathering evidence for a
prosecution. Therefore, going back to this case, the statements made by the boy to the
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Also, because sue was informing the police about the events as they were happening, any reasonable person would think that sue was facing an ongoing emergency. Because sue called the police to enable police assistance, her call is acting as a witness, not a testifying. Her call is not testimonial and can be used in court even though she refuses to testify. An elementary school teacher notices some bruises on a seven year old boy. The teacher asks the boy how he got the bruises and the boy replies that his mother"s boyfriend hits him when he misbehaves. He tells the teacher that he prefers the hits to being locked in a closet which also happens sometimes. The teacher reports the abuse to the police. This case is similar to ohio v clark. Because the child had visible bruises, the teachers questioned the child in order to protect him.
