|
The Sixth Amendment in the United States Constitution is known as the "confrontation clause." The confrontation clause guarantees that in all criminal trials, a defendant shall have the right to confront the witnesses against him. The confrontation clause is limited to testimonial evidence. In the matter of State of Florida v. Holland, the Fourth District Court addressed the confrontation clause as it relates to statements made in a DUI video tape. The primary issue was that the State of Florida planned to introduce the videotape into evidence even if the sheriff's deputy who prepared the videotape was unavailable for trial. The district court reversed a non-final ruling granting defendant's motion to suppress a DUI videotape. A de novo standard of review was applied because the case involved a mixed question of law and fact determining constitutional issues.  Before trial to trial, the state announced it wouldn't be calling the deputy who performed the field sobriety exercises on the defendant. The defense made a motion to suppress all evidence of the deputy's involvement in the DUI investigation on the basis that the failure to call the police officer violated the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The state argued the videotape did not violate the 6th Amendment as it was not hearsay; and, alternatively, regardless of whether it was hearsay, the videotape was not testimonial. The state intended on calling the sheriff's deputy who made the traffic stop as the state's primary witness. The circuit court disagreed with the state's legal arguments and granted defendant's motion to suppress the videotape on the basis that the videotape and all statements made to or by the sheriff's deputy in the videotape were in preparation for criminal prosecution & were testimonial. The district court held that the defendant's refusal (in the videotape) to undergo sobriety testing was admissible under the law. The district court also found that the statements made by defendant to the deputy administering the field sobriety exercises were non-hearsay verbal acts, which are admissible not to prove the truth of the assertions therein, but to give sense to the defendant's otherwise ambiguous acts in the videotape. The district court further found that since the statements in the videotape were not hearsay, the videotape wouldn't violate the 6th Amendment. The matter was remanded for a evidentiary hearing to be held on the authentication of the videotape as a condition precedent to the tape's introduction. For additional information on Dui Attorney Miami FL , Miami DUI Lawyer or miami dui attorney you can contact our office at: The Law Offices of Rosenberg and Dye 201 South Biscayne Boulevard 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 (305)429-3285
Related Articles -
dui attorney, miami dui attorney,
| 
