From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...
United States v. Schnapp
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
322 F.3d 564 (2003)
Christopher Schnapp (defendant) operated a store that burned down. After the fire, Jim Schuhmacher, the county fire investigator, walked through the building. There were signs that electrical arcing had started the fire. Schuhmacher told Schnapp that the fire had probably started in the furnace room’s ceiling and removed a light fixture and junction box from that ceiling. The store’s insurance company hired Bill Buxton and his company, Pyr-Tech Inc., to investigate the fire. Buxton was Schuhmacher’s former supervisor and mentor. When Buxton went to investigate the store fire, Schuhmacher went with him. Buxton decided that the fire had been started by a human on the furnace room’s floor. Buxton and Schuhmacher then both wrote reports finding that the fire had been started by a human on the furnace-room floor. Schnapp was charged with arson. During Schuhmacher’s cross-examination at trial, Schnapp’s attorney never asked Schuhmacher about his prior statement that the fire had started in the ceiling or why it was inconsistent with the conclusion in Schuhmacher’s report that the fire started on the floor. When Schnapp testified later, he attempted to testify about Schuhmacher’s prior inconsistent statement that the ceiling was the source location. But the trial court excluded the testimony because Schnapp never gave Schuhmacher an opportunity to explain or deny the statement during cross-examination. Schnapp was convicted of arson and appealed. On appeal, Schnapp argued that Rule of Evidence 613 did not require cross-examining Schuhmacher about the prior inconsistent statement before Schnapp could testify about it.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (McMillian, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 616,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 616,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,400 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.