Sentences with phrase «excited utterances»

Xanada (B$ 1,086.76) Vancouver Law Librarian Blog (B$ 939.06) excited utterances (B$ 325.98) CS - SIS Blawgs Committee (B$ 296.85) Stark County Law Library Blawg (B$ 185.51) Connie Crosby (B$ 124.28) Out

Joy London of excited utterances and Ron Friedmann of Prism Legal have updated their list of Outsourced Legal Services.

Please help me welcome Law.com's newest blog affiliate, Excited Utterances.

A new overview by Ron Friedmann and Joy London of Excited Utterances gives a sense of the scale and growth of this activity.

Thanks to excited utterances, I learn that Alan J. Rothman has launched a blog, The Subway Fold.

Pairing [Joy London's] award - winning KM blog with editor Sean Hocking's acclaimed Law Librarian News, the semi-monthly «Law Librarian News & excited utterances» will deliver direct - to - desktop news - you - can - use — by, for and about the global legal information and knowledge management market.While excited utterances will continue to deliver the same reliable online coverage of legal KM that its readers have come to rely upon, our new combined publication creates the perfect vehicle for legal knowledge managers and law librarians who want to understand the machinations of the current market.

Blawg Review I / P Updates MyShingle.com Jottings by an Employer's Lawyer Crime & Federalism Silicon Valley Media Blog Insurance Scrawl The Common Scold Robert Ambrogi's LawSites Law Department Management Excited Utterances Prism Legal InhouseBlog The Wired GC

Excited Utterances 9.

I also recommend, as always, this list and guide to outsourced legal services by two other Law.com bloggers, Joy London, author of the blog excited utterances and Ron Friedmann, president of Prism Legal Consulting, Inc., and author of the blog Prism Legal.

The 911 Tape Is Excludable Under the Hearsay Rule Additionally, the 911 tape can be introduced as evidence against you during a trial under the «excited utterance» exception to the hearsay rule.

The court cited that relatively short distance, along with the severe pain the victim likely was feeling, in reasoning that it was «inconceivable» that the victim could have spent the time it took to get from point «A» to point «B» concocting a story and in ruling that the victim's statements should have been admitted under the «excited utterance / spontaneous declaration» exception to the rule against hearsay.

The defendant alleged that admitting the victim's statement at trial would violate his 6th Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him as set forth in Crawford v. Washington, while the prosecution argued that the statement constituted an exception to the hearsay rule as an excited utterance and its admission would not violate the 6th Amendment.