skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 121612 Find in a Library
Title: Corroboration Requirement (or Lack Thereof) for Statements Against Penal Interest in Wisconsin: State v. Anderson
Journal: Wisconsin Law Review  Volume:1989  Issue:2  Dated:(1989)  Pages:403-439
Author(s): J D Best
Date Published: 1989
Page Count: 37
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article examines State v. Anderson, a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision interpreting the statutory standard of corroboration required for introducing into evidence a declaration against penal interest offered to exculpate the accused in a criminal trial.
Abstract: The article analyzes the facts and procedural posture of the Anderson case, the Wisconsin statute and its legislative history, and the historical development of the statement against penal interest exception to the hearsay rule. Federal and State evidence rules pertaining to statements against penal interest are discussed and assessed. The article points out that the Wisconsin Supreme Court chose not to follow the more stringent Federal standard and in Anderson created a very permissive standard for admitting declarations against penal interest. The Anderson rule has little solid support in legislative history and legal precedent and can result in problems when applied at the trial court level. The Wisconsin Supreme Court should have considered, when ruling in State v. Anderson, a more moderate approach that balanced the restrictive Federal rule and the permissive Wisconsin standard. 228 footnotes. (Author abstract modified)
Main Term(s): Confessions
Index Term(s): Hearsay evidence; State supreme courts; Trial procedures; Wisconsin
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.