Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

 In United States v. Salerno, 505 U.S. 317, 321, 112 S. Ct. 2503, 120 L. Ed. 2d 255 (1992) the only Supreme Court decision to address the 'similar motive' requirement, the Court clarified that 'similar motive' is a necessary element of Rule 804(b)(1). Id. at 321. However, it did not explain how courts should determine whether a party's motives are 'similar.' Id. at 325. Justice Blackmun, concurring, provided some guidance by noting that 'similar motive' does not mean 'identical motive,' and that the 'similar motive' analysis is 'inherently a factual inquiry' based on 'the similarity of the underlying issues and on the context of the . . . questioning.' Id. at 326 (emphasis in original). See United States v. Geiger, 263 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Poland, 659 F.2d 884 (9th Cir. 1981) (per curiam). The courts twice addressed whether, under Rule 804(b)(1), suppression hearing testimony is admissible at a later proceeding. See United States v. Geiger, 263 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Poland, 659 F.2d 884 (9th Cir. 1981) (per curiam). 


In Poland, an eye-witness identified the defendant in a lineup. 659 ...

Register or login to access full content



Professors
Professionals
Students