
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


Send us a text
In this episode we discuss the case of United States v. Quezada, where the appellant was convicted of a sexual assault (Article 120) and of false official statement (Article 107) for denying that the sex act that amounted to the sexual assault occurred. The issue is whether the "false exculpatory statement" instruction undermined the appellant's presumption of innocence and right to due process . . . it didn't. We then move on to discuss the hearsay exception for declarations of a then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition.
By Sam Castanien & Trevor Ward5
1919 ratings
Send us a text
In this episode we discuss the case of United States v. Quezada, where the appellant was convicted of a sexual assault (Article 120) and of false official statement (Article 107) for denying that the sex act that amounted to the sexual assault occurred. The issue is whether the "false exculpatory statement" instruction undermined the appellant's presumption of innocence and right to due process . . . it didn't. We then move on to discuss the hearsay exception for declarations of a then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition.

90,932 Listeners

43,818 Listeners

228,694 Listeners

38,800 Listeners

26,224 Listeners

153,509 Listeners

1,066 Listeners

1,942 Listeners

112,200 Listeners

56,496 Listeners

15,863 Listeners

26,623 Listeners

45 Listeners

22 Listeners

619 Listeners