Circuit court was not required to believe that any non-verbal communication between a juror and a spectator addressed, or affected the juror\u2019s view, of the action\u2019s merits. Statutes address evidence from mentally incapacitated persons. One statute provides that such a person is incompetent to testify. Another provides admissibility for the person\u2019s out-of-court statements. But appellant did not show that a declaration of incompetence negates reliability because the two statutes use different standards: the statutes test different characteristics to determine mental capacity, and the latter statute\u2019s considerations include indicia of reliability under the totality of circumstances, while the former limits inquiry to when the person is produced for examination. Law of the case might not bar a challenge to evidence, because the contexts of the earlier trial and later trial can be different, at least when the later trial resulted from a reversal of the earlier judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
State of Missouri vs. Angela R. Henderson<\/a><\/em> If you’re interested in speaking with an attorney, call our office at 816-524-4949 or click here <\/a>to schedule a consultation.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Circuit court was not required to believe that any non-verbal communication between a juror and a spectator addressed, or affected the juror\u2019s view, of the action\u2019s merits. Statutes address evidence from mentally incapacitated persons. One statute provides that such a … Continue reading
(Overview Summary)<\/a>
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD83661<\/p>\n\n\n\n