Legal Opinion · Dissent
United States v. Miguel Felix-Jerez
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided February 16, 1982No. 81-1121Published
1DissentKilkenny, Senior Circuit Judge
Because I feel that the majority’s construction of FRE 801(d)(2) as applied to the admitted facts in this case is completely wrong, I am obliged to file this dissent. The statements read into evidence by Hardeman were not hearsay, and, therefore, were properly admitted:
I
The Rule under consideration provides, among other things:
“RULE 801. Definitions
The following definitions apply under this article:(a) Statement. A “statement” is (1) an oral or written assertion or (2) nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by him as an assertion.
* * * # * *(d) Statements which are not hearsay. A…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- United States v. Reies Lopez Tijerina and Jerry NollCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1969
- Alonzo A. Adams v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1963
- In Re Southland Supply, Inc., Bankrupt. Sam Jonas, Trustee of Southland Supply, Inc. v. United States Small Business AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
- Ali Galeb Ahmed v. American Steamship Mutual Protection & Indemnity AssociationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.