Romesburg and Chapin met at Chapin's apartment during the late afternoon on January 16, Romesburg was equipped with a transmitter, but once again, it malfunctioned and the conversation was not recorded. Chapin planned a rendezvous there with Romesburg and one other person.
All of them would be carrying money. Once the three individuals met in Windsor, all the money would be given to Romesburg who would drive to Toronto to pick up ecstasy tablets and transport them back to Windsor.
Romesburg departed Chapin's apartment and followed agents to the Washtenaw County Sheriff's Department as instructed. Later that day, according to plan, Romesburg called Chapin and told him that he was denied entry into Canada, the money was seized after a drug dog had alerted to it, and he was given a receipt at the border.
Chapin allegedly expressed dissatisfaction and asked Romesburg several questions about the fabricated events as described by Romesburg. He said he had found it at his apartment when he returned there earlier that afternoon. Romesburg said that he believed that one of Chapin's associates had made the delivery.
Approximately thirty minutes later, agents recorded a call they had instructed Romesburg to place to Chapin. Chapin expressed satisfaction and the two agreed to talk again later. A meeting was arranged later that day during which Romesburg gave Chapin the money. Following that meeting, Chapin was arrested. Edward Romesburg died on March 27, His body was found in his apartment. The government states that the cause of death is unknown and still under investigation.
The defendant contends that the death was caused by an accidental or intentional drug overdose. The government proposes to offer Romesburg's statements via two different modes. The first consists of the testimony of DEA agents who would relate what Romesburg told them.
The second mode would be actual recordings of Romesburg's taped conversations with the defendant. For analytical purposes, the government then suggests that the statements fall into four categories, each carrying a different rationale for admissibility: 1 statements in which Romesburg implicates himself in his own criminal activity, which the government asserts are admissible as statements against interest under Fed.
Statements which fall in the first category are Romesburg's admissions that he sold ecstasy to Shields, and that he had obtained 10, to 12, ecstasy tablets over a twelve-month period and distributed them. If these statements constitute hearsay, then they are inadmissible unless covered by an exception to the hearsay rule. The government acknowledges that it would offer Romesburg's admissions to prove that Romesburg was involved in trafficking in ecstasy.
Each statement made by the declarant which the proponent offers under this exception must be analyzed separately. United States v. Jinadu, 98 F. United States, U. Only those statements that actually inculpate the declarant are admissible, even if those statements are made as part of a broader narrative.
See McClung v. Wal-Mart Stores, F. Thus, a statement inculpates the declarant only if it would be probative of his conviction at trial. In this case, the statements will be offered by the government to incriminate, not exculpate, the defendant.
Consequently, "corroborating circumstances" are not required to bolster the trustworthiness of the statements. Hilliard, 11 F. However, the problem with evaluating the import of these statements at present stems from the difficulty of assessing context. For instance, in the first example, Romesburg clearly incriminates himself, but he also implicates Shields.
Whether Shields has any connection to the defendant or played a role in Chapin's "organization," as the agents' reports characterize Chapin's associates, has not been explained. Similarly, Romesburg apparently stated that he acquired 10, to 12, tablets of ecstasy in a twelve-month period. But he said that he obtained them from Chapin. That statement, therefore, would implicate both Romesburg and the defendant; the Supreme Court has characterized such evidence as "inherently unreliable.
Virginia, U. The Court is thus reluctant to approve the admissibility of this category of evidence at this stage of the proceedings without the proponent having identified the exact statements as opposed to examples of same it proposes to introduce.
A proffer should include the intended purpose of the evidence and a statement of its relevance to the charges in the indictment. At present, however, the government's motion in limine as to this category of evidence will be denied without prejudice.
The government thus turns to the residual exception now codified in Federal Rule of Evidence , which states:. The defendant argues that Romesburg's statements lack the requisite circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness and, more importantly, introducing them would abridge his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Both the residual hearsay exception in Rule and the Confrontation Clause require particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.
The other prerequisites of Rule are either easily determined materiality, lack of a non-hearsay source or overlap with the interests underlying the Confrontation Clause the interests of justice. Consequently, courts consistently have proceeded directly to the Confrontation Clause inquiry without first determining if the evidence would be properly admitted under Fed. See, e. Wright, U. Gomez-Lemos, F.
Personally, I feel that what Jesse did is morally reprehensible and I have no problem with the decision that was made. With a quick switch of the hat, I am now a lawyer for Hasbro, and my purpose in life is to protect the interests of the shareholders of Hasbro stock. While I certainly have morals and ethics, they are not taken into account when I make my decision. My only goal is to ensure the continued growth and profitability of Hasbro and its subsidiaries, such as Wizards of the Coast.
With that in mind I issued the below statement through Trick Jarrett on Reddit and I will now field a few of the most pressing questions from the community. We work hard to make sure all players feel welcomed, included and safe at our events so that they can have fun playing Magic. Sexual assault and dealing drugs are two completely different things. Probably not. Marijuana is being legalized in several states and could very well be legal in all fifty in the next decade. Bar full of drug dealers?
No big deal. Bar full of sex offenders? Magic tournament full of drug dealers? Kind of an odd place for them to be. Magic tournament full of sex offenders? Take a look at this headline:. Last, but not least, given the headline you filled in, would you let your child go play Magic? This is about the perception of the safety of the environment of a Magic tournament.
Nothing more, nothing less. Yes and no. Reality is that not everyone can play Magic. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email. He made the top eight at the Grand Prix in Atlantic City on the 10th of May this year, which prompted another player, Drew Levin, to expose him as a convicted sex offender: Levin is referring to an incident in when Jesse, a year-old student at the University of Virginia, was charged with the rape of another student.
Those positions have merit of course, and every individual is entitled to their opinion. Share this: Twitter Facebook. Like this: Like Loading Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here Get the latest entertainment news, celebrity interviews and pop culture pulse on movies, TV and music and more at ABCNews. How long does marijuana or weed stay in your body, urine, or The trio from punk band Pussy Riot, handcuffed in a courtroom cage, reacted with giggles and one rolled her eyes when the judge issued the sentences after reading the.
Read political news commentary and analysis from today's most popular conservative columnists and bloggers including Ann Coulter, Thomas Sowell, Michael Barone, Hugh. Celebrity News Celebrity Gossip - Yahoo!
0コメント