Memorandum From: Margaret Veith To: Maria L.

Reuther Date: February 17, 2012 Re: Darryl Dore

Our potential client Mr. Dore has been arrested and charged with burglary, which means the crime of breaking and entering into a structure for the purpose of committing a crime. Prior to seeking our counsel he had been advised by another attorney. An automobile repair shop in Hoover, Fine Auto was burglarized on March 24, 2011 and a number of tools were taken. At this time Mr. Dore says He was in Huntsville, Alabama. On April 1st 2011, Mr. Dore had told his sister, Angela that he had driven a car to Fine Auto and waited while Johnny went into and stole tools. During this time his sister became very upset and an argument broke out. Due to the loud noise levels a neighbor called the police and they responded to the Dore residence. Angela stated to them something to the effect of He just told me the as the one who helped his friend (Johnny) break into the auto place. A statement that could come back to haunt Mr. Dore. Mr. Dore was arrested that night for Domestic Violence Third Degree and that case was later dropped. Johnny was later charged with the burglary and entered a plea of guilty to that offense. Another piece of possibly damaging evidence the State has is a written statement signed by Johnny which states: I went to Fines and went in and I stole a box of tools to work on my car with and Bigg went with me. Biggs real name is Darryl Dore.

Angela, Mr. Dores sister, although subpoenaed, does not want to have to take the witness stand and testify against her brother. Thankfully, because of the precedent set by Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S.Ct. 1143 (2011) 179 L.Ed.2d.93, 79 USLW 4104, 84 Fed R. Evid. Serv. 1033 Ms. Dore should not have to. When the police were called to the Dore residence to resolve the domestic dispute the circumstances of the encounter as well as well as the statements and the actions of (Dore) and the police objectively indicate that the interrogations primary purpose was to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency, Ms. Dore was under extreme duress and was not speaking with law enforcement officials conducting a structured interrogation. Ms. Dores statements are out-of-court statements and hearsay in general and should be inadmissible on those grounds alone. Also, the State wants to introduce the written statement at trial against Mr. Dore and is unwilling to have Johnny brought to Jefferson County to actually testify as a witness at the trial. There are two major problems with this as illustrated by Williams Jr. V State, 627 So.2d 985 (1991). The first major problem with this is again it is an out-of-court statement. (Written out of court by Johnny) The second major problem is that Mr. Dore (accused) has the right to confront his witness (Johnny) and cross-examine him. If Johnny is unable or unwilling to come to Jefferson County for Mr. Dores trial that is a blatant disregard of the fundamental requirements of a fair trial Const. Art. 1. 6 U.S.C.A.Amend. 6. In order from preventing the same mistake we must not permit the written confession into evidence. Initially, the appellant (Mr. Dore) contends that the trial court erred in permitting the confession (Johnnys written statement), identified as having been written, to be received into evidence. He cites several reasons for this argument. First, he contends that there was no showing that he (Johnny) was read his Miranda rights prior to the statements being

written. Secondly, the appellant maintains that since Miller (Johnny) did not testify at trial, his right to confront his accusers, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, was violated. Williams v. State, 627 So.2d.985, 5 (1991)