< Previous page

A few examples include what someone says on their deathbed and what someone says despite the possibility of facing criminal charges. The argument is that those statements are thought to be trustworthy because of the context in which they were said.

"When a person makes a statement that tends to incriminate themselves, there is trustworthiness in that statement," said Carl Fox, district attorney for Orange and Chatham counties.

Among the many hearsay exceptions, lawmakers also created a catchall exception that allows a jury to hear any statement that a judge determines to be trustworthy and furthers the interest of justice.

In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court gave courts some guidance on allowing in hearsay statements under such catchall exceptions when it created a "reliability" test. The test allows a jury to hear what a witness previously said if the witness is both unavailable to be questioned at trial and the judge found what was said to trustworthy.

In the Eric Miller case, Willard's widow told police that Gammon advised her husband that he could face being charged with attempted murder. Therefore, many lawyers speculate prosecutors could argue that Willard's statements can be expected to be truthful because he said them despite knowing he could face a criminal charge.

Raleigh lawyer Johnny Gaskins said he thinks a judge could have found Willard's statements to Gammon to be trustworthy because they were communications between a lawyer and his client seeking legal advice. But Gaskins said he thinks the recent Supreme Court's decision not only overturns the 1980 decision creating the reliability test but also kicks out most of the hearsay exceptions -- leaving Wake prosecutors without a chance.

"It [is] very clear to me that the statement in the Miller case is not going to come into evidence," Gaskins said.

Others disagree, saying the Crawford decision is not as broad as Gaskins thinks but rather only applies to statements people can expect to be used at trial later. It is unlikely Willard thought what was said to his attorney could be used later at a trial, and therefore would not qualify under Crawford to keep the statement out.

Besides, it is still unknown how courts will interpret the Crawford case, said Duke University law professor Robert Mosteller. Without knowing what the statement says, Mosteller is wary of making predictions about admissibility.

But Mosteller said prosecutors might have a tough time using any of the current hearsay exceptions to get the statement in as evidence.

A statement may not be trustworthy just because someone told it to their attorney, he said. As a criminal lawyer for years, Mosteller said he often found some clients reluctant to be completely honest with him.

< Previous page

Get $150+ in coupons in every Sunday N&O. Click here for convenient home delivery.