As long as the victim was of sane mind, I don't understand how the dying man's statement would NOT be admissible. I don't see justification for throwing it out? If I were dying from a gunshot and let it be known who did it, I would like to think it would matter.
TIS
Perhaps the actual legal experts can chime in but my understanding is that it's (or rather it WAS) problematic to allow that into the courtroom because the accused can no longer challenge his/her accuser.
And, from what I know of our legal system, perhaps it's because the Accuser can't be cross-examined. Still, to think it just doesn't matter seems unfair.
TIS
I'm a little late to this thread, but the Federal Rules of Evidence, as well as the evidentiary rules of the states, preclude hearsay testimony in order to serve, in part, the interests of the confrontation clause. However, there are dozens of specified exceptions to the hearsay rule, which allow the testimony to be admitted. Among them is the dying declaration. Essentially, the declarant must have presence of mind that he is about to die; the statement must be related to his pending death; and he must die.
The reasoning is that someone facing certain death would not lie about the circumstances that brought about his death. The statement, like all others in a jury trial, must be judged by the jury. A dying man, who utters, "Geoff just shot me," gets the statement admitted in the murder trial against Geoff. If he said, "Geoff robbed the First National Bank in Trenton," under the same circumstances, then the statement is precluded as inadmissable hearsay against Geoff in the robbery trial. In the latter case the probative value of the utterance is less reliable than that of the former.
