Reference no: EM133452913

Case Study: The defendant (D) is charged with a brutal rape, robbery and murder that occurred in an apartment elevator in Washington, D.C. The defendant's DNA was found in the victim's body. He was arrested at home two weeks later based on the DNA match. He lives near the scene of the crime. He told the police he was at home alone on the night of the crime. He made no other statements to the police. There is no evidence other than his DNA that connects him to the crime. On the eve of trial, one year after the incident, the prosecutor receives a letter from P, a state prisoner who is a neighbor and a lifelong associate of D. P was arrested several months after D. He is serving three consecutive life sentences, having pled guilty to three homicide/rapes committed at around the same time and in the same neighborhood. The letter, which P signed and swore to before the prison notary, says: "Dear prosecutor: You are prosecuting the wrong man. I killed the woman in the elevator. You will find her empty wallet at the bottom of the elevator shaft in the building next door. I stole some of D's DNA and put it in her body." P's letter goes on to describe details of the crime, known only to the medical examiner, that were not publicized, - including details about the manner in which the victim's body was injured. The police find the victim's empty wallet exactly where the letter said it would be. The medical examiner's report, which has not been released to the press or public, confirms the details in the letter concerning the victim's injuries. The prosecutor shows the letter to the judge, who directs that it be turned over to the defense. The defense contacts P, the prisoner, but he refuses to speak to the defense lawyer or to comply with a subpoena to testify at the trial. He says that his letter speaks for itself, that he will refuse to be transported to the court house, and that if he is compelled by force to take the witness stand, he will repudiate the letter and assert his privilege against self-incrimination. The defense applies to introduce P's notarized letter at trial by calling the notary who witnessed the sworn statement.

ASSIGNMENT: Make the case for and against admissibility of the letter. Now be the judge. How would you rule on the admissibility of the letter and why?