Evidence Flashcards

Question

Jury instructions

Answer 1

You can object later on (or the judge can raise the issue themselves) if plain error affecting mothafucking substantial rights has occurred.

Answer 2

You need to show the instructions are a clearly inaccurate statement of the law that would probably lead to an incorrect verdict.

Answer 3

The objection is waived if it is not timely.

Answer 4

doesn't only occur with jury instruction fuck ups, it can occur anytime there is an enormous error affecting someone's substantial rights.

Answer 5

When an opponent at trial argues against the admission of a piece of your evidence; whether physical evidence or testimonial; you may make an offer of proof.

Answer 6

Objection후에 "나는 Admissible로!" Just you telling the judge 1. What the evidence is (describing it or showing it to the judge) 2. Explanation of how the evidence relates to the case itself; and 3. Arguments supporting admissibility of the evidence.

Answer 7

A motion to strike happens when some evidence got in that should not be admissible; and you are asking for the jury to disregard it and preserve the error on appeal.

Answer 8

it did not record any shots in this area at the time you are saying my client allegedly shot someone?

Answer 9

Error that does not adversely affect a party's substantial right and will not warrant reversal of a judgment. More likely than not, Jury would have reached the same verdict absent the error.

Answer 10

Error that adversely affects a party's substantial right and warrants reversal. - Error adversely affects a substantial right if it affects the outcome of the case: if the jury most likely would not have reached the result it did, but for the error. 약간 Structural Error? Plain Error같음.

Answer 11

Plain Error is error that is not raised at trial but is so obvious and substantial that it excuses any failure to raise it and warrants reversal. - So Vital to the defendant that reversal of the conviction was still warranted.

Answer 12

To prevail in an appeal on a properly preserved (by timely objection or offer of proof), argument that the court erroneously excluded or admitted evidence, a party must show 1- Trial court abused its discretion 2- Error affected a substantial right of the party. ----- error probably had a significant influence on the jury's verdict. - Prejudicial errors probably have a significant influence on the jury's verdict; but harmless errors do not. Plain erros have a significant influence on the jury's verdict and warrant reversal even if the argument was not properly preserved for appeal.

Answer 13

the Witness' ability to testify truthfully and accurately. 1. Personal knowledge. 2. Related those facts to the jury. 3. Gives an oath or affirmation to testify truth 4. Neither a judge nor a juror. Presumed to be competent.

Answer 14

Age lack of mental capacity intoxication at the time of the testify. --> Weight of the jury; not about admissible or not. --> If federal civil cases, State Rules of Competency apply if state law supplies any element of a claim or defense.

Answer 15

Witness is deemed competent; - Witness may be impeached based on sensory deficits such as poor eyesight or a brain injury affecting the witness ability to recall events.

Answer 16

only after it has been attacked. - Evidence used to rehabilitate an impeached witness must directly answer the impeachment evidence.

Answer 17

only after his character for truthfulness is attacked and only with reputation or opinion evidence.

Answer 18

Prior, consistent out of court statement is admissible to 1. Refute allegations of recent fabrication or improper motive or 2. Rehabilitate credibility if attacked on other grounds.

Answer 19

The Federal court should also apply state law with regard to the effect of presumptions.

Answer 20

1. Rationally based on the witness perception 2. Helpful in understanding the witness testimony - If based on the witness experience and gives the jury more information than a mere recitiation of facts. 3. Not based on any scientific technical or other specialized knowledge

Answer 21

1. Rationally based on the witness' perception. + Helpful to the jury + Not based on technical, scientific, or other specialized knowledge.

Answer 22

==> Rationally based on the witness' perception.

Answer 23

No conclusions allowed. No Opinions allowed, JUST FACTS

Answer 24

"Ultimate Issues," but can give an opinion on identification of drugs; speed of moving vehicle; whether someone was drunk; etc.

Answer 25

Rationally related to your perception. e.g., 1. Identification of drugs; 2. Speed of moving vehicle; 3. Whether someone was drunk, etc.

Answer 26

that you thought it was crack; you smoke it everyday.

Answer 27

not the admissibility of the evidence.

Answer 28

if you are a bank teller testifying in a fraud case; e.g., you may testify to the similarities you see in handwriting samples; because they are rationally related to your motherfucking perception.

Answer 29

Child testifies.

Answer 30

to understand their obligation related to telling the truth.

Answer 31

When it comes to civil actions; you cannot testify in support of your own interest about a dead person's estate.

Answer 32

You can't be like; "oh yea Bob?" I know Bob is dead and I started to inherit his fortune but; he told me I could have all his shit 12 sec before he died and he wanted to cut out my sister Karen.

Answer 33

incompetent and cannot testify.

Answer 34

but in diversity cases they will apply a state dead man's statute.

Answer 35

The court takes Judicial notice of facts generally known in the jur or facts that no one is arguing about from accurate; unquestionable sources.

Answer 36

Linda new Goat Law Clerk telling you the date that Pearl Harbor happened is not an "accurate and unquestionable" fucking source. 오답: "Judge Walterson knew it"이런 것은 상관 없음.

Answer 37

The court can take it of a fact on it's own, or at the request of a party who supplies them with the necessary informationn.

Answer 38

No mandatory presumptions in criminal cases.

Answer 39

court's acceptance of a well known and indisputable fact without requiring evidentiary proof of the fact. Without any evidentiary proof. Math formula or the fact that it was raining outside on the particular day. - Adjudicative facts. Not legislative

Answer 40

river navigable, newspaper largest circulation in the state, canning baked beans in New England.

Answer 41

you are presumed innocent; + The Prosecution must prove each and every little baby element of this crime. So nothing is mandatory for the jury to consider.

Answer 42

You can have mandatory presumptions that the jury must consider.

Answer 43

Mandatory.

Answer 44

Jury can accept it or not. - Does NOT create a presumption. - Conclusive.

Answer 45

They determine shit like whether a witness is competent.

Answer 46

FRE 605. You don't even need to object; it is considered an automatic objection. If a judge does this; it is preserved for appeal

Answer 47

admissibility of hearsay evidence and confessions. - When determinating the admissibility of hearsay evidence and confessions; it must be outside the presence of the jury.

Answer 48

the courtroom. They determine the order of the witnesses; - timing - who presents what evidence first. They determine what evidence comes in (sometimes, they even determine that evidence can only come in for one specific purpose and not another; and they tell this to the jury). - They kind of just run the whole procedural aspect of their little courtroom.

Answer 49

A def using an alias or nickname could be let in, so long as there was other corroborating evidence that linked him to the crimes; or perhaps I send you $100,000 in cash to your bank account; that isn't itself illegal; but it will serve as circumstantial evidence that we were standing on some Goat Gang Bus.

Answer 50

1. Determine credibility - Judge determines admissibility jury determine credibility and reliability of witness testimony.

Answer 51

2. Jury Misconduct - Things like lying during voir dire or running your own experiments or googling stuff could lead to a new trial.

Answer 52

3. Jurors can talk to the press. - But only once the trial is done.

Answer 53

4. Can't testify about the deliberation - In criminal or civil cases jurors can never testify about the deliberations that took place to get a verdict or indictment. Can testify about outside influence someone taking about sth they googled; mistaken understanding or outside influences.

Answer 54

Can't be witnesses - Juror are disqualified as witnesses in trials they are sittting on if the other side objects.

Answer 55

If a juror says afterwards "yea Donny screamed at me back there in the jury room, and I got intimidated.

Answer 56

This will all be inadmissible and not grounds for a new trial.

Answer 57

1. Refusing to deliberate at all.

Answer 58

2. Intentionally agreeing to nullify the verdict; that is, choosing the side the jury wants to win to make a societal statement not based on the facts.

Answer 59

3. A juror; even with the best of intentions, bring in expert or specialized opinions could be grounds for a new trial. - I saw one case at the civil court where a train conductor told everyone how the gate sensors work on the train track warning things; and the case got remanded for a new trial. - If a juror has specialized knowledge and agrees not to use it; they can still serve on the jury; merely possessing specialized knowledge isn't an automatic knockout.

Answer 60

4. Using a random ass fomula to come up with a verdict; like adding everything up and diving by 7. These are called "quotient" or "compromise" verdicts; not allowed.

Answer 61

5. Communications with others about the case; via social media or in person.

Answer 62

We can't hear about arguments inside the jury room.

Answer 63

-Def is presume innocent. - Gov officials are presumed to carry out their duties competently.

Answer 64

How a rebuttable presumption operates; a party benefiting from a rebuttable presumption must produce evidence to support it. The opposing party can then produce rebuttal evidence sufficient counterproof to rebut the presumption; then the presumption disappears. and the party formerly benefiting from the presumption bears the burden of persuasion.

Answer 65

Permissible Inference. In all criminal cases; there is a presumption that defendants are innocent until proven guilty.

Answer 66

presumed to be dead.

Answer 67

S. Ct it is a violation of due process for a judge to give a mandatory jury instruction in criminal case on an element of the crime charged; "shall be presumed" to shift the burden of proof to the defendant or to require that the jury find an element of the crime charged; nonononononononono.

Answer 68

If a Goat is found to be in possession of stolen property; you must find that the Goat intended to deprive the owner of it permanently.

Answer 69

--> You can't do this shit.

Answer 70

The gov officials like USPS workers will carry out their duties of actually delivering the mail.

Answer 71

it is then presumed to be received by the other side. - Civil만 해당. -In criminal, it is up to the jury's discretion and only permissive presumptions are allowed.

Answer 72

Court controls what order the evidence is presented in and what order the witnesses testify; The standard of proof for overturning a judge's evidentialry rule is: Abuse of Discretion.

Answer 73

Unless he acted arbitrarily or irrationally.

Answer 74

followed by the def's case.

Answer 75

Direct examine: 5W

Answer 76

1. Who, 2. What 3. When 4. Where 5. Why.

Answer 77

Leading questions are allowed on cross.

Answer 78

Hostile witnesses who are adverse to use - which is why we almost exclusively allow leading on cross examination because all those witnesses are typically adverse or hostile.

Answer 79

allowed on direct in certain limited circumstances, such as

Answer 80

1. Introductory matters.

Answer 81

2. Very young or forgetful witnesses.

Answer 82

A witness you called is being biased; evasive; argumentative, and changing their story on your direct examination of them?

Answer 83

Daddy judge will let you cross your own witness in most cases.

Answer 84

Witness Credibility or Subject Matter of Direct

Answer 85

Scope within Cross Exam.

Answer 86

Criminal defe. to be confronted by the witnesses again him; if new matters are raised on cross examination or redirect exam during a criminal case; 6th requires the court to permit redirect exam to address new issues raised on cross exam and recross exam to address any new issues raised on redirect.

Answer 87

1. Leading question. OK. These are questions that suggest an answer. "You went to the pasture, right?"

Answer 88

2. You can cross examine any witness who testifies at trial. You can even impeach your own witness.

Answer 89

3. Scope of cross? - you can only ask about matters within the scope of the direct examination OR things that test the witness' credibility- Bias, Perception, Memory.

Answer 90

4. Cross cut short by death or illness of a witness? Direct will be striken adn it could cause a mistrial.

Answer 91

5. Have fun. Yes your client might be facing life in prison for a vicious homicide or rape; yes you might be litigating a soul sucking vicious divorce or you may be trying convince a jury to award your client $2 million on an abstract spinal injury but this is our dream be in the moment.

Answer 92

is always relevant and can always be brought up; even if it is not within the scope of the earlier questioning.

Answer 93

You can only talk about what was on CROSS.

Answer 94

Now the other side will have a chance to respond to cure the prejudice from your little fuckup. - If we talk about apples; - you start talking about banana. - on my redirect I can bring up the bananas.

Answer 95

Witnesses can be excluded from the courtroom so they don't hear what other people are saying adn tailor their testimony to that.

Answer 96

1. People permitted by statute (like victims) cannot be excluded.

Answer 97

2. A person whose presence is essential to a party presenting their case. like a jury expert or a summary witness.

Answer 98

3. The parties themselves and their lawyers.

Answer 99

doesn't have the right to be present for all parts of the trial; like when the lawyers go back and argue a quick in limine motion: just the importatn parts in front of the jury.

Answer 100

any witness they want or call their own witnesses or experts. If a lawyer is fucking up badly, the jdge will just start cross examining

Answer 101

simply casting an adverse reflection on the veracity of a witness.

Answer 102

even your own witnesses or by extrinsic evidence. And when I say extrinsic evidence, I am talking about calling other witnesses or brining in documents to prove someone is lying.

Answer 103

you can't call a hostile witness solely to impeach them.

Answer 104

- Chicago man convicted of murder on testimony of blind witness to get new trial. - You can use extrinsic evidence to prove this. - Like a prescription for thicc glasses.

Answer 105

1. Civil trial: they can use your prior silence to impeach you. The jury can draw an adverse inference based on your pretrial silence.

Answer 106

Criminal case You have the right to remain silent. So post Miranda, post arrest silence CANNOT be commented on or used to impeach.

Answer 107

The state was going to bring in 5 of my clients convictions that he had plead guilty to in the past.

Answer 108

But whether or not we can impeach depends on 3. 1. The amount of time passed. 2. What type of crime it is. 3. Whether our witness is the def or not.

Answer 109

Any crime > 10 years old. (Old shit) -> excluded unless probative value substantially outweighs prejudice risk (hard test). (Substantial이라는 단어가 있는)

Answer 110

Dishonesty Crime: all come in.

Answer 111

Crime < _ 10 years; Non dishonesty crime.

Answer 112

Crime < _ 10 years; Non dishonesty crime. 1. Def is witness. Felonies only. 1-1 Excluded unless probative value outweighs prejudicial risk. (normal test: substantial이라는 단어가 없는)

Answer 113

Crime < _ 10 years; Non dishonesty crime. 1. Def is not a witness. Felonies only. 1-1. Admissible as long as it passes R 403 Balancing test. not meant to waste time, confuse jury, etc.

Answer 114

Crime < _ 10 years; Non dishonesty crime. 1. Def is witness. Felonies only. 1-1 Excluded unless probative value outweighs prejudicial risk. (normal test: substantial이라는 단어가 없는) + You have to give the other side ADVANCED notice of your intent to use it.

Answer 115

Protective than (Def is not a witness). The probative value must outweigh the prejudicial risk.

Answer 116

so long as they pass the 403 balancing test - Will not confuse or mislead the jury, result in unfair prejudice, needlessly present cumulative evidence.

Answer 117

Substantial.

Answer 118

Probative.

Answer 119

Not wasting juries time.

Answer 120

You can bring specific bad acts which involve untruthfulness. - Things like lying and deceit, not prior arrest as kind of a "shots fired" question on cross only.

Answer 121

"너, 1999년에 입시 부정 저질렀지?" - Shots fired. "No." - You can't go into it after you fire your shot. - You can't bring in extrinsic evidence to prove he did lie (like documents or witnesses) Because then we would have a goddamn Trial within a Trial.

Answer 122

If Goat's reputation and opinion witness gets up and says, "Yes, Goat is loved in our community; He is non violent guy I've ever met." --> The prosecution can then hit him with a shots fired bad act impeachment adn say, "are you aware that Goat attacked 57 Grandmas?" --> If the witness says, "No, I am not aware of this. The prosecution just has to leave it alone." --> Because this is opinion witness in the community.

Answer 123

You have to have a reasonable basis to bring up these facts or it will be an ethics violation. I can't just get up there adn accuse a motherfucker on cross examination prior bad act impeachment of attacking 57 grandmas with no basis. The jduge will be like, "what basis di you have to even ask that?"

Answer 124

not any consequence that flowed forth from it. - e.g., you can say, "Isn't it true you stole from your last employer?" but you can't say, "isn't it true you were fired for stealing from your last employer?"

Answer 125

can't dirty up the witness either by impeaching them on collateral matters or irrelevant issues unrelated to truthfulness. - E.G., "Isn't it true you were actually seen at a strip club 19 times in the month of Jan?" - This is not probative.

Answer 126

Bars the extrinsic evidence to impeach a witness on a collateral matter. Colleteral matter is a matter that has no tendency to make any fact in the proceeding other than the witness' impeachment more or less probable.

Answer 127

Admission of any extrinsic evidence to impeach a witness if the evidence is probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusing or misleading the jury; wasting time or needlessly introducing cumulative evidence. Heightened admissibility standard leaning toward exclusion if the impeachign evidence is a prior felony conviction used to impeach a criminal def witness.

Answer 128

Extrinsic Evidence of Bias Permissible. - Bias is always relevant; courts generally require a party to lay a foundation before introducing extrinsic evidence of a witness bias.

Answer 129

collateral evidence. Extrinsic evidence that a witness has an improper bias or interest is never collateral.

Answer 130

If admissible, evidence of the prior conviction is limited to the name of the offense, the date of the offense, and the punishment for the conviction.

Answer 131

Only if the probative value of admitting the prior felony conviction outweighs its prejudicial effect.

Answer 132

impeach the witness character for truthfulness Other reasons: no. e.g., Contradicting the def's testimony.

Answer 133

A party may inquire about specific instances of conduct; or prior bad acts not resulting in a conviction; related to a witness' character for truthfulness; if the party has a plausible, good faith basis for doing so.

Answer 134

If we have i our possession directly contradictory evidence? Students get caught up in all the crazy impeachment rules they forget about good old fashion impeachment by contradiction.

Answer 135

"I have never once in my life ever seen cocaine." --> Goat can say, "Well you have 27 drug convictions for cocaine and you directly said an hour ago that you loved how cocaine made you fell in this same trial." --> if a man says, "I would never touch my wife" you can bring a witness up to say that he saw this man beat his wife."

Answer 136

So long as you are directly impeaching them on what they said and not impeaching them on some random collateral shit that doesn't relate to the main facts, this will work.

Answer 137

Addressing inconsistencies between the witness present testimony and facts other than prior inconsistent statements. Like bias, specific contradcition is not explicitly covered in the FRE but is governed by the rules addressing relevance and probative value. Specific contradiction require the admission of extrinsic evidence the evidence being used to contradict the witness

Answer 138

not even statements. -e.g., officers testimony was an admissible contradiction with which to impeach the def.

Answer 139

They can be impeached on that at any time. E.g., financial interest at play; or a personal vendetta against someone they are testifying about; or they are afraid of abuse from their husband, etc.

Answer 140

trump the other exclusionary rules.

Answer 141

financial interest to lie.

Answer 142

If we have 2 statements by the same person at different times; we can bring in the earlier statement to show

Answer 143

are usually not available as substantive evidence. because they are almost always out of court statements and thus hearsay.

Answer 144

of a prior inconsistent statement

Answer 145

explain or deny the statement.

Answer 146

to show that Goat made a prior inconsistent statement without allowing him a chance to explain or deny the statement.

Answer 147

Kianna. Witness. Declarant: Says, "Goat's murder trial; her friend Kevin Tipcorn made an excited utterance." but Kevin Tipcorn is unavailable currently. ---> I fucking love being an unavailable eharsay declarant in Phuket."

Answer 148

we have a hearsay declarant: unavailable Ghost Witness.

Answer 149

P.I.S. Prior. Inconsistent, Statement. Kevin is in Phuket. Kevin doesn't have a chance to explain or deny?

Answer 150

Impeach a hearsay declarant (Kevin Tipcorn) with a prior inconsistent statement without giving them a chance to explain or deny.

Answer 151

we can impeach it, and even rehabilitate it if a hearsay declarant's statement gets in under an exception or exclusion. Just as if they were an actual witness testifying. - Credibility of Both the testifying witness and the hearsay declarant can be attacked through impeachment methods like prior inconsistent statements, prior conviction, bias, sensory deficiencies; you name ti it can be attacked.

Answer 152

no opportunity to explain or deny is needed. It will get in as an opposing party admission (Party Admission Doctrine) automatically.

Answer 153

prior inconsistent statment shouldg et in without an opportunity to explain or deny from the witness; it gets in.

Answer 154

1. normally the prior inconsistent statement is just allowed in for impeachment; however, it can be allowed in substantively (meaning, the jury can consider it for it's truth as well; not just for it's ability to show the witness a liar) when it is given under oath at a prior formal hearing, proceeding, trial or deposition.

Answer 155

2. Prior inconsistent statements are only brought in to impeach. however, when they are from an opposing party they can also be brought in substantively and be considered for their truth.

Answer 156

with a prior inconsistent statement too. Usually by calling another witness.

Answer 157

Someone does indeed get impeached; Can we make them look better after? YES.

Answer 158

come in when; 1. Declarant testifies and is subject to cross; AND 2. The previous statement is consistent with declarant's in court testimony; AND 3. The opposing party ahs attacked the witness' in court testimony AND 4. The statement must have been made before the motive to fabricate could arise;

Answer 159

that comes in as substantive evidence; not just to rehabilitate. It can be considered by the jury for its truth.

Answer 160

Some prior statements of a declarant witness are exempted from the definition of hearsay because the declarant witness is at trial and able to be cross examined about th eprior statement. Declarant witness' prior inconsistent statement

Answer 161

1. Witness testifies and is now cross examinable regarding the sts 2. The prior sts is inconsistent with the declarant witness present testimony 3. Prior statement made under penalty of perjury in a prior proceeding or deposition. --> If prior inconsistent state does not meet these criteria; admissible for impeachment purposes.

Answer 162

1. Improperly bolster the declarant witness credibility. 0 declarant witness prior out of court sts is not hearsay and is admissible if 1. Declarant witness testifies and is now cross examinable 2. The prior stte is consistent witht eh declarant witness present testimony 3. Prior stat was made before the alleged motive to fabricate arose; 4. Prior Sts is offered to rebut an allegation of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive or to rehabilitate the declarant witness credibility when attacked on other grounds.

Answer 163

More likely than not true. Evidence is more likely admissible than in admissible - The courts admission of the proffered evidence will depend on whether the evidence has any tendency to make the fact of contract formation more ore less probable than without evidence.

Answer 164

The prosecution has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that an incourt identification of a criminal def was not tainted by an unconstitutional out of court identification.

Answer 165

Tendency to make the existence of any consequential or material fact more ore less probable than it would without the evidence. - Fact finder evidence can be relevant and admissible even if it is not very persuasive.

Answer 166

Relevancy is an initial admissibility determination made by the trial judge. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.

Answer 167

Evidence is conditionally relevant if its relevance depends on the existence of another fact. A party offering conditionally relevant evidence must sufficiently demonstrate the existence of the other fact.

Answer 168

The ct evaluating relevant evidence challenged under R 403 of the FRE should 1. Determine the probative value of the proffered evidence. 2. identify the presence of any of R 403's identified dangers or considerations, 3. Balance the probative value of the evidence against the identified dangers or considerations.

Answer 169

If identified dangers or considerations substantially outweigh the evidence's probative value; the court may in its discretion, exclude the relevant evidence.

Answer 170

1. A testifying criminal def' prior felony conviction 2. A criminal conviction more than 10 years old (substantially outweighs) 3. An otherwise inadmissible basis of an expert's opinion (substantially outweighs) and 4. In vicil sexual offense case, evidence of a victim's secual behavior (substantially outweighs).

Answer 171

Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if it creates an undue tendency to suggest a jury reach a decision on an improper basis. (improper basis: emotional) "Undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis."

Answer 172

if the evidence was relevant because the graphic nature of the evidence was particularly likely to incite the jury to make an irrational decision, and the evidence was therefore unfairly prejudicial.

Answer 173

the prejudicial effect did not substantially outweigh the probative value of having the jury hear and comprehend the entire substance of the recording.

Answer 174

1. The degree to which the evidence might arose strong emotions or irrational prejudice. 2. Whether the jury will misuse or overvalue the evidence. 3. The probable effectiveness of a limiting insturcion on the evidence's admission. 4. Whether other means of proof are available. 5. How central the evidence is to the case.

Answer 175

The court could enter the stipulation as an alternative; less prejudicial means to prove the felon element of the felon firearm possession crime.

Answer 176

R 403 Balancing test determines the admissibility of an in court or computer generated demonstration or recreation of an event. - Computer animated recreation of hte shooting to demonstrate how or where the shooting could have occurred.

Answer 177

R 403 Unfair Prejudice: does not apply to jury trials. If there is no jury; evidence should not be excluded based on the risk of unfair prejudice because. 1. Judge can avoid improper inferences. 2. To make a R 403 determination; the judge by definition, must review the proffered evidence anyway.

Answer 178

If the evidence's probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of confusing the issues or misleading the jury.

Answer 179

How much weight a jury generally gives to expert testimony, cts scrutinize expert testimony under R 403; of the FRE more closely than lay testimony. Juries' willingness to ascribe infallibility to experts and other scientific or technical evidence raise the likelihood that expert testimony will mislead them.

Answer 180

In criminal case; the parties frequently argue over the degree to which alleged evidence of a 3rd party's guilt will confues or mislead the jury. S Ct. excluding this type of evidence denies a def his constitutional right to a fair trial if the evidence raised a reasonable inference of the guilt of a 3rd party and the prosecution had presented strong forensic evidence of the def's guilt.

Answer 181

Exercise its discretion and exclude evidence if the risk that the evidence will cause undue delay; waste time; or be needlessly cumulative (i.e., redundant) substantially outweighs the evidence's probative value.

Answer 182

야구 심판을 공격한 사건: Thousands' of fans: 다 증인 이야기 들어주면 시간낭비.

Answer 183

The party proffering evidence must demonstrate that the evidence is what the party claim it is.Authentication

Answer 184

Authentication is accomplished by a witness with personal knowledge testifying that the evidence is what it is claimed to be. -방법: Lay foundation.

Answer 185

Proffering party needs to make only a prima facie showing of genuineness. (이 도끼가 범죄 현장에서 사용된 바로 그 도끼냐. 이 사인이 체크에 서명된 진짜 그 사인이냐.) (Fingerprints, blood, hair: nonexpoert authenticating handwriting or a recorded voice with which he is familiar or an expert comparing a proffered item with an already authenticated item.)

Answer 186

Expert testimony by asking the expert about his qualifications to testify about the subject matter at the beginning of the examination. - Observing that the foundation for photographic evidence can be laid by any person who can testify that the pics accurately represent the facts allegedly portrayed in them.

Answer 187

opinion based ok. 반대로, Expert witness> personal knowledge ok.

Answer 188

A witness with personal knowledge of the scene depicted in a picture may authenticate a picture by testifying that the picture is fair and accurate representation of the scene.

Answer 189

using traditional authentication principles.

Answer 190

History of a piece of evidence. 1. Condition and the location of the evidence. 2. Custodians in possession of it. -The party offering the evidence bears the burden of establishing that the chain of custody is substantially unbroken.

Answer 191

Prosecution tries to authenticate drugs seized from def using a chain of custody; def may try to demonstrate that there are substantial gaps in the chain of custody or that the drugs were somehow altered since being in his possession.

Answer 192

calling each witness. who originally handled them at the scene.; to the chemist who tested it.

Answer 193

1. Testimony of the photographer themselves; 2. Testimony of someone who witnessed the photography or 3. Testimony of someone who was there at the time or who has been to the location of the photograph to testify that the photograph is a fair and accurate representation of the area.

Answer 194

몰래카메라.됨. You must show: 1. Properly installed, 2. The film was properly removed. 3. And Then show chain of custody.

Answer 195

Must show: 1. The process used to create the X-Ray is accurate. 2. The machines was working properly; AND. 3. The operator was qualified to sue the machine.

Answer 196

1. Party Admissions: If a party says that they themselves actually wrote a document; that is sufficient to authenticate it. OR 2. Personal knowledge: - A witness saying they viewed someone else write a document works to authenticate it as well.

Answer 197

1. The document is at least 20 years old. 2. There is no suspicious shit on it. that is, no white out marks or things crossed out. 3. And it is found in a place of natural custody such as an old book ro newspaper being found in a library not your friend Jimmy's house next to his laser printer and counterfeit money machine.

Answer 198

1. It can be authenticated by a handwriting expert. 2. It can be authenticated by a lay witness opinion, someone who previously was familiar with the author's handwriting. 3. A visual comparison by jury: Jury can see a sample of handwriting that is known to be the author's handwriting and let them compare it to a disputed handwriting sample

Answer 199

we just need to prove 1. We called the right number; 2. The person who we called answered and identified themselves.

Answer 200

People have a little more reason to fraud their identity. 1.- You need the caller to identify themselves; 2. You need recognition of their voice by the witness they called. 3. You recognize what they are talking about or 4. You recognize their reply technique when you ask them a question. --> Basically identify + more shit which lets you know it is them.

Answer 201

Whe you call a business, to prove that you dialed the number of the business and they answered the phone talking about business shit.

Answer 202

can be identified based on the opinion testimony of any person who is familiar with the speaker's voice. and this familiarity may be acquired at any time.

Answer 203

Identification ok, Lay witness voice identification based on prior familiarity with a voice is admissible unless it has been tainted by impermissibly suggestive quesitoning or investigative procedures. Expert testimony is not normally required.

Answer 204

by hearing it in person or electronically through the phone or on a recording device.

Answer 205

1. Gov document that are sealed or signed and certified. 2. Foreign government document. 3. Certified copies of public records. 4. Official publications. 5. Newspapers and periodicals. - We can't get the contents of the articles in, mainly just the newspaper to show that a party had notice of sth like a class action. 6. Trademarks and trade inscriptions. 7. Acknowledged documents, such as those signed by a notary public. 8. Commercial paper documents. 9. Documents declared to be presumptively authentic under a federal statute; 10. Certified business records of regularly conducted activity. --- like vehicle registration form.

Answer 206

Final question that must be decided by the trier of fact; such as whether a def in a personal injury action was negligent. - FRE take the general position that an opinion on an ultimate issue; whether from a lay witness or an expert witness is admissible if it is helpful to the trier of fact.

Answer 207

the victim suffered included disfigurement: likely extreme physical pain: --> Trial for an assault involving "extreme physical pain" and "protracted and obvious disfigurement."

Answer 208

had a mental state required as an element of a charged crime or defense is inadmissible. - lay witness는 가능.

Answer 209

- Opinion about ultimate issue: Cause of accident, defective product; forged signature --> OK. Not def contributorily negligent, or def intended to kill Walter. NO.

Answer 210

1. Expert cannot say directly that the def is guilty or not. 2. Cannot say def was legally sane or legally insane, but they can testify the fact that the def has a disorder and talk about what it is. 3. Can't talk about whether someone had intent or not. but they can talk about issues surrounding intent which could be relevant. - they can testify that the way marijuana was packaged and vaccume sealed is indicative of the def being a large scale drug dealer; this is ok even if it technically embraces the issue of the intent to sell drugs. 4. Ultimate factual issues like whether def had schizophrenia or was packaging up drugs like a drug dealer but they cannot testify to whether someone is legally insane or had intent to commit a crime or is guilty. The way goat is selling the grass and how he is packaging it up illegally to show factually he is a drug dealer.

Answer 211

The 1st question by the opponent: how much you been paid to be here today? and how often do you testify for the plaintiff / defense?

Answer 212

Impeached with prior inconsistent statements and they can be cross examined on conflicting data in the field.

Answer 213

The judge barred the def's psychiatric expert witness from testifying that the def's mental issues made is unlikely that the def could form the mental state required for the crime.

Answer 214

Expert witness may not testify that a def in criminal case or does not have the mental state necessary to form an element of the charged crime or defense; many courts allow parties to ask psychiatric expert wtinesses ypothetical questions about a mental condition and its causal relationship, to a hypothetical person's actions. Questions that directly track the wording of a statute defining an offense are inadmissible; whereas questions that leave the jury to draw some inference independently rather than being told what conclusion to draw by the expert witness are more likely to be admissible.

Answer 215

The Proponent of expert testimony must establish its admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence. - More likely than not.

Answer 216

1. Qualified. - You don't have to be the best witness in the field or match the qualifications. you don't need formal education

Answer 217

금손 똥손 주식 펀드 투자 전문가: Fake expert. If you have zero training and only tangetial experience with the topic; not helpful to the jury.

Answer 218

Expert Witnesses.

Answer 219

1. Facts, Data 2. Reliable principles; methods. 3. Actually used, applied them. --> 기준: Preponderance of Evidence. + Abuse of discretion.

Answer 220

1. Personal knowledge. 2. Evidence presented at trial and witnesses he has heard. 3. Use of Hypo> ok. and opinion OK. 4. Facts outside the record if those facts are typically relied on by experts in the field.

Answer 221

1. Daubert. 2. Kumho Tire.

Answer 222

S Ct if a party seeks to introduce expert testimony based on purportedly scientific knowledge; the judge must make an initial determination using a preponderance of the evidence standard. that the evidence is

Answer 223

1. Reliable. 2. Relevant. 3. Not unfairly prejudicial, confusing, or misleading. --> Depending on weight, a jury generally gives to expert testimony, it is onot proper to refer to a jury questions about the testimony's reliability.

Answer 224

1. Testability of the technique/ theory. 2. Peer review or publication. 3. Rate of error. 4. Degree of general acceptance of the technique theory in the scientific community. --> Helpful in evaluating the reliability of expert testimony. Judge, gatekeeping role; determines which factors to apply in admitting or excluding expert testimony.

Answer 225

1. Tested principles and methodology 2. Rate of error must be low. 3. Acceptance by other experts in the field. 4. Peer reviewed.

Answer 226

ensure experts in their testimony "adhere to the same standards of intellectual rigor that are demanded in their professional work." --> Reliability, Relevancy of An Expert's Testimony.

Answer 227

Abuse of discretion (Joiner)

Answer 228

R 702: The judge's gatekeeping function applies to all expert testimony based not only on scientific knowledge, but also on technical or other specialized knowledge.

Answer 229

Expert testimony: 1.Relevant, --- FIT. 2.Necessary, and --- Common knowledge or experience. 3.Appropriately Limited. ---- If it does not undermine the power of the judge and jury to decide the law; the weight of evidence, or the credibility of witnesses.

Answer 230

Any topic if 1) scientific; technical, or other specialized knoweldge and 2 helps the trier fact understand the evidence or determine a fact at issue. 3. Innumerable topics and every available cause of action crime and defense.

Answer 231

Opinion of legal experts; ok. - e.g., legal malpractice claim. - no law governing the case. - testimony could confuse or mislead a jury; not be helpful when the judge later instructs the jury on the applicable law. e.g., permitting a legal experts on a lawyer's ethical obligations in a case prosecuting a lawyer for alleged misconduct.

Answer 232

1. The court taking judicial notice. 2. The other expert. 3. Your own expert testimony - Treatise can come in as substantive evidence; when an expert is on the stand and explaining it to the jury; it can be used to impeach the other's expert too.

Answer 233

The relevant portion can be read into evidence but the jury cannot take the treatise back with them in the deliberation room; because there is a danger they would sit back there looking through a bigass book and get confused as shit.

Answer 234

Expert opinions on the credibility of other witnesses are inadmissible. - experts opinion about someone lying or telling the truth is not helping the jury.

Answer 235

Probative. Tendency.

Answer 236

prejudicial. All demonstrations and experiments have to be substantially the same condition as the original event in question.

Answer 237

Nature or disposition of a person or how it is anticipated they will act under certain defined circumstances.

Answer 238

1. Negligent Entrustment, 2. Negligent Hiring, 3. Child Custody Hearings, 4. Defamation "Essential Element of Claim."

Answer 239

1. Opinion 2. Reputation, 3. Specific Instance of Conduct - Chicken's character : "I was a thief."--> SIC.

Answer 240

1. Victim's good character (victim is peaceful) 2. "It is you, defendant, violent." -bring character witness of def and fuck up with prior bad acts. -

Answer 241

The prosecution can offer evidence of the victim's good character for peacefulness.

Answer 242

The person acted in the routine practice of a business admissible to prove that on a particular occasion, the person or business acted in conformity with their habit or routine.

Answer 243

1. Regularity 2. Specificity. 3. It must be an involuntary or semiautomatic response.

Answer 244

If you dont' follow an industry custom that everyone else is following; it won't be conclusive evidence you breached the standard of care. (negligence). --> It is offered as some evidence towards your breach of the standard of care.

Answer 245

Character Evidence가 아님. 1.Motive 2.Intent 3.Mistake or accident or absence of mistake. 4. Identity (modus operandi). 5. Common scheme or plan.

Answer 246

Past racism proves intent. If the person is constantly burning crosses in front of black people's houses this could be used to show that he had intent to commit a crime agaisnt black ppl later on due to his racism.

Answer 247

If someone has burned down 6 of their houses for insurance money or if someone has written 2000 opioid prescriptions in the course of one month; we can see this motherfucker has a common plan to break the law.

Answer 248

Prior Convictions or Evidence that proves the act occurred. (민사 형사 다 사용 가능).

Answer 249

Prosecution provides sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the def did those acts by a preponderance of the evidence; it will come in. The court will still weigh the probative v. Prejudicial value.

Answer 250

This doesn't prove they have a bad motive. You need to show that these prior lawsuits and accidents were scams.

Answer 251

S. Ct held that testimonial hearsay statements are not admissible even if they otherwise qualify under an existing exception unless; 1. Declarant is unavailable and 2) Def had a previous opportunity to cross examine the declarant about the statement.

Answer 252

A statement is so contrary to an unavailable declarant's penal proprietary, or pecuniary interest that a reaasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made it if it were not true

Answer 253

Dying Declaration, Former Testimony, SAI, Statements of personal history.

Answer 254

1. Exclusion 2. Exception 3. Not offered for the truth.

Answer 255

Emotional reactions are not hearsay because they are not intended as assertions.

Answer 256

NO. If someone means, "yes" or "no" by crying? XXXXXXXX

Answer 257

NO. Not offering to show the truth of the matter.

Answer 258

is also nonhearsay because you are not offering it for the truth of the matter asserted. You are using it to say Someone is a lying motherfucker.

Answer 259

1. Words of Contract; 2. Words of Marriage --> Legal Obligations. NON Hearsay.

Answer 260

"Explains conduct" nonhearsay rule.

Answer 261

Essentially that the listener had either Notice or Knowledge. 목적: Take Particular Action.

Answer 262

Nonhearsay. To show notice. --> Mechanic Goat had notice that he was supposed to fix them.

Answer 263

Toasters Incorporated has received 50 fucking letters in teh past about their dogshit toasters catching on fire. --> Admissible. Not to show they are defective; but to show they were put on Notice.

Answer 264

You can bring in a little statement to show the effect on the listener (you).

Answer 265

Nonhearsay. - Effect on the listener. "I am not committing a crime of theft."

Answer 266

"I am a prophet of God." ==> Admissible. They are bringing in to show that Goat is a fucking lunatic off his meds. Iif someone brings in words spoken by someone else and you take those words to make an additional inferential step about the persons statement of mind: it is not hearsay. (What they are feeling.)

Answer 267

"나 강도가 걷는 것을 들었을 때 거의 죽을 뻔 했다." -->Statement of Mind랑 약간 다름. We bring the statement to make the additional inferential leap to show he was terrified (SOM) not for TOMA.

Answer 268

No Extra Step to Figure out the True Feelings in his heart. EG. "He said to me, "I am terrified."

Answer 269

at hearing, proceeding, or deposistion.

Answer 270

1. Impeachment. 2. Substantive Evidence, 3. Cross examination 다 됨.

Answer 271

Only admissible for impeachment.

Answer 272

1. Prior Inconsistent Statements UNDER OATH. 2. Prior Consistent Statements. 3. Prior Statement of Identification

Answer 273

Defense Attorney suggest Personal dispute: with Rainbow: now accusing him of stealing his shit becuase of their little personal dispute; Boom. --> Rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper motive they just levied at us.

Answer 274

The prosecution can now introduce a statement which Goat made to the police immediately after the robbery; which occurred MONTHS before the personal dispute with Brown, where Goat identified him at the scene.

Answer 275

El Chapo - When a witness at trial identified someone in the past; but now on the stand they "can't remember," then, the court wants that earlier more reliable identification in.

Answer 276

1. Earlier Identification out of court 2. Available for Cross in court but can't remember, ==> Earlier Identification as non hearsay. --> But, if the witness refuses to testify at trial; their prior identification is not getting in.

Answer 277

Anything Another party makes, at any place; at any time, and under any circumstance is admissible against the party who made the statement.

Answer 278

Homeowner sued the plumer. You need to think to yourself Civil. EX. Goat claims that Rainbow Brown agreed to certain terms in a K. The civil trial begins. Goat Brings in a witness who says that Rainbow Brown said, "yeah, Goat, I agree to these terms." --> Opposing party admission.

Answer 279

The reasonable person would have denied or responded to... their silence can be deemed an admission; Their silence speaks volumes.

Answer 280

CEO signed it (for the lawsuit)--> yes. remain silent: I've adopted that shit.

Answer 281

If a party is authorized to speak on behalf of you like your lawyer for example or your publicist who speaks on your behalf; if the lawyer says some wild shit in litigation or negotiations; it is as if. you said it.... It's like the client brought the motion even though your client doesn't know shit about the law.

Answer 282

within the scope of their employment. They just must be made during the employment relationship to get in.

Answer 283

"we made a shit" Anything said at work or after work if you are there, it is vicariously liable admissible against your employer. It is not admissible if you quit, are fired, have retired; etc.

Answer 284

Nonhearsay and admissible for their truth.

Answer 285

1. 2 snakes (coconspirators) 2. Sts must take place during the conspiracy itself (before hte objective of the conspiracy has been accomplished). 3. In furtherance of the conspiracy. (can't just be them talking shit about going to the strip club or sth).

Answer 286

"Yes, El Chapo, I will deliver the 900 tons of fentanyl through an underground tunnel in Eagle Pass Texas."

Answer 287

If you join the conspiracy on Jan 1st, but they were talking about their crazy conspiracy for a year before; yes. It can be used against you as a coconspirator admission at your trial. Statements made by co conspirators after you get arrested can be used against you. Iunles syou become a gov witness or withdraw).

Answer 288

A party cannot introduce their own party statement.

Answer 289

Opposing Party Statement가 아님. 예를 들어, 지미--> 밥에게 팔 뿌러뜨렸다고 소송함. 지미의 네이버가 증인으로 나와서, "Jimmy told me he was dying of pain for months." 지미는 그냥 자기 자신의 말을 인용하고 있음. XX

Answer 290

Defendant. Def Themselves. (selfserving도 Opposing party admission에 해당한다는 말임) - Def says, "I was in Indiana when murder took place." Later, video says, He was in Illinois. His statement earlier to the cops post Miranda Yeas that shit got in as an opposing party admission.

Answer 291

1. Police report: Business record. 2. The witness yelled, "oh my god! I am excited! the truck just ran a red light and hit me."--> Excited Utterance, Present Sense Impression

Answer 292

Excited Utterance, Present Sense Impression (사건 발생 날짜 1. 1) 이틀 후 김 다 빠지고 쓰는 경우 --> 안 됨. --> Jury or Judge can't read that part.

Answer 293

Out of court statement quoting another out of court statement: need 2 hearsay exceptions.

Answer 294

Present sense impression

Answer 295

-Statement describing an event as it is occurring or directly after it occurred; -The statement must explain or describe the event and must be made at the same time you are perceiving it.

Answer 296

The Statement a few minutes after you perceive something, that is still fine. - 911 call.

Answer 297

Nobody calls 911 Cool and Relaxed. - EX. "Johnny is breaking into my house."

Answer 298

Someone telling someone else about license place as someone speeds away or recording the plate number on audio.

Answer 299

Still under the stress of a startling event. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 300

1. The statement is actually startling. 2. A short time between the startling event and the statement. - The time can be a lot longer than that allowed for a present sense impression; even a few hours sometimes if you are still under the stress of the startling event. 3. That. you did not have time to reflect and falsify; so the court will look at what activity you were engaged in between the startling even and your little outburst.

Answer 301

police shows the camera footage of someone robbing the bank: you say, "holy shit, that looks like my brother!" that 's admissible.

Answer 302

Excited Utterance로 됨.

Answer 303

longer time leap 됨. - The child is still under the stress of the startling event, even 3 hours after Crash. - Sexual Assault, Physical Abuse. Even months afterwards.

Answer 304

Plus present intent to do a future act.

Answer 305

Intent to do something in the future.

Answer 306

Present intent to do a future act. Goat said, "I am going to get a bank loand an buy call options on TSLA with a strike price of $500 expiring on 1/31. He said he had diamond hands."

Answer 307

When it comes to present states of mind.

Answer 308

The Sts must be reasonably related to the actual injury; not you being a little bitch and specifically blaiming a named person.

Answer 309

"I was hit by a car driven by Deer." XXXX

Answer 310

Nurses, EMTs, family members that will give the sts to the doctor. all admissible.

Answer 311

1. Witness can't remember shit. 2. Writing can't be read. 3. Absolutely fucking anything and any writing. 4. No, (read into evidence). 5. Non hearsay 6. Not subject to best evidence rule

Answer 312

1. Witness can't remember 2. Writing can be read. 3. Accurate writing made by witness when it was fresh in their mind. 4. Can be read. 5. Exception to Hearsay. 6. Subject to best evidence rule.

Answer 313

It doesn't have to be a writing. It can be something you tape recorded or made a little audio recording of as well.

Answer 314

1. Any type of record; any form, data, docu, memo 2. Made in the ordinary course of business. 3. The business regularly keeps such records as these. 4. The entries were made at or near the time the event actually occurred. 5. Matter is made with personal knowledge. 6. Made by person with a business duty.

Answer 315

Double hearsay danger.

Answer 316

just look up from the test booklet and say to the person next to you, "they aren't going to fuck me over this time."

Answer 317

It won't get in. It mean sometimes people prepare records solely for the purpose of litigation.

Answer 318

Self serving motive to fabricate a record. Untrustworthy and inadmissible. NOT business record.

Answer 319

Business or Public records in Civil cases. but not criminal cases.

Answer 320

they are specifically carved out of the public records exception in criminal cases because we don't want the prosecution to prove their whole case through these second hand hearsay reports of the officer and witnesses in the police report.

Answer 321

If business did not make a record; they normally would have made a witness can bring that it to be like "why the fuck did n't you make this record; you clearly did not do some shit." e.x., Medication Chart

Answer 322

If a hospital has a chart showing that they were suppose to give you Xanax three times a day at 3 pm, 6 pm, and 9 pm and they miss 9 pm on the chart; there is no record for it. --> Admissible to show that the hospital was negligent.

Answer 323

1. Public Records. 2. Reports. 3. Fire Marshall Reports. 4. Statements, 5. Data are admissible so long as we meet a few key elements.

Answer 324

showing activities of public agency or matters which are observed pursuant to a legal duty to report. And NO. The rule says this is not for police officers in criminal cases. so don't mess around.

Answer 325

1. Data about those who have been deported. 2. Voting records. 3. A manual prepared by an agency to file employment harassment claims.

Answer 326

Investigation Reports.

Answer 327

1. Airplane crash reports. 2. Fire investigations --> Factual findings in the public reports are admissible even if they contain conclusions.

Answer 328

Both Public Records, Public Reports. Business Records. Nothing sketchy can be going on with them adn if there is motive to fabricate them, they will be looked upon with suspicion. --> Declarant availability immaterial.

Answer 329

Additional hearsay Exception (Negative Evidence).

Answer 330

Statements that are contained in published treatises bigass books periodicals on the topic of medicine, science, history, art, physics, etc are able to be admitted through this hearsay exception.

Answer 331

Authenticate it.

Answer 332

1. On direct examination of your own expert. (1) must recognize the treatise, and (2) say that they relied on it to authenticate it. 2. If. you bust out a full blown treatise on cross examination against an expert (when you are the enemy of the expert testifying) and you show him a treatise to take his ass down, and he doesn't know what it is, you have 2 options. - 1) get it in through daddy judge and judicial notice. or - 2) Call your own expert to testify that the treatise is reasonably relied upon in the field.

Answer 333

It doesn't get admitted into evidence because then the jury would just be sitting back there trying to read this big ass fucking book the whole time.

Answer 334

The person must be AVAILABLE and given an opportunity to explain or deny.

Answer 335

must have had a meaningful opportunity to cross examine or challenge in other words the witness on essentially the same issue.

Answer 336

Think about police officer testifying at a preliminary hearing because he pulled Goat over and found 900 pounds of weed in his tractor. a preliminary hearing is just a fancy word for a basic probable cause hearing where a cop gets questioned before you get indicted. The police officer is questioned about the traffic stop, then he is cross examined about it by Goat's lawyer. Then the officer dies. If the prosecution wants to bring in this former testimony from the officer and offer it against GOAT; well; it can get in preliminary hearing than he would have at trial.

Answer 337

You don't actually need to cross examine the officer in the earlier trial. So long as you had the opportunity to do it. So long as you had similar incentive to ask certain questions.

Answer 338

but the prior testimony was at a grand jury. No. No defense attorney. No prior testimony allowed if officer dies. If we want to offer prior testimony against the def in a criminal case, the def has to be there at the prior hearing. Be a Party in it.

Answer 339

the other party doesn't necessarily need to be there or be a party in the prior hearing; but a predecessor in interest must be there. Predecessor in interest가 있어야 함.

Answer 340

Threatens or intimidates a witness or otherwise causes them to be unavailable, it is over. Their former testimony is getting in against the party that made them unavailable.

Answer 341

Sworn written statement with a notary is not admissible if someone dies. - Affidavit is hearsay. Not admissible if someone dies. not former testimony. Nobody cross examined anyone who wrote that.

Answer 342

They are against financial or legal interest: which would get them arrested. Why would someone make a statement implicating themselves in a crime or against their financial interest if it wasn't reliable?

Answer 343

As a defendant, I can't bring in an exculpatory statement to free myself unless it is reliable. --> Corroborating Evidence before def can bring in someone else's statement against interest which shows the def is not guilty.

Answer 344

Death: certain and imminent "Yes I am finally going to have to kill Rainbow tomorrow for this." XXXXX This is not a dying declaration.

Answer 345

Cause of death "impending death Kevain Tipcorn owes me money" XXX

Answer 346

you believe you were going to die.

Answer 347

Homicide or civil cases.

Answer 348

Privilege Refusal to take the stand. Incapacity Someplace else Memory gone.

Answer 349

Mighty Chipmunks Murder or Civil.

Answer 350

Marriage, Death, Birth Certificates - Gets in

Answer 351

Market reports and publications.

Answer 352

Family records, genealogies, family tree charts, tombstone words, family portraits, and statements about a declarant's own family history if they are unavailable.

Answer 353

1. Recorded documents affecting property interest and stats within documents affecting property interests. 2. Prior felony convictions.

Answer 354

If witness talking the same thing after def gets arrested: it is testimonial and violates Confrontation clause. if the primary purpose of the communication is to respond to an ongoing emergency; it is not testimonial.

Answer 355

not testimonial. because it is ongoing.

Answer 356

testimonial.

Answer 357

which identify the def as the person who committed the crime are testimonial and need the person who performed them to be there or it violates the confrontation clause.

Answer 358

they are talking about business shit def's bank records, so they can come in even if the def doesn't have a chance to corss on them.

Answer 359

is concerned with disputes about what is actually depicted on the document itself. or the recording or picture.

Answer 360

When a witness is testifying to something they saw or heard that was later or simultaneously written down, audio recorded, or caputred in a photograph, the witness can just talk about it.

Answer 361

It's the disputed evidence v. The real life humble flex rule

Answer 362

bring that shit in.

Answer 363

just talk about it

Answer 364

attacking our inherent sense of injustice using what I call the better evidence trick.

Answer 365

The other side objects under the best evidence rule because he did not bring in the secret recording and secret video.

Answer 366

It's the best evidence rule; not the duplicative cumulative evidence rule. 1. Lay witness can still testify about the things are rationally related to their perception. 2. They can testify about conversation they had with goats while they were undercover. 3. They can testify about their birthdays without brining in a birth certificate. 4. They can testify about their salaries without bringing in their paystub.

Answer 367

Even experts can make work product. (3rd party).

Answer 368

if it was not your fault that the original document was lost because;

Answer 369

we can present them in the form of charts or summary exhibits to the jury or judge

Answer 370

1. Destroyed without bad faith. 2. Cannot be obtained with legal process. 3. Lost or cannot be found with due diligence.

Answer 371

to the party opponent so that they can examine them for accuracy and authenticate them.

Answer 372

The summary is inadmissible.

Answer 373

authenticated by what is called a sponsoring witness.

Answer 374

reviewable. 굳이 써머리를 신청할 필요 없다. 100, or 200개 정도 되야 함.

Answer 375

if we have a truly large amount of records and if the other side is given notie and given the originals to separately authenticate to make sure they are real we can present a mothafucking graph with an expert witness and it will not be in vioaltion of the Best Evidence Rule.

Answer 376

1. One part of a writing is offered into evidence (or part of a recording); the other side has the right to offer the rest of the writing or recording if not doing so would lead to an unfair result.

Answer 377

you could still testify to observations, general knowledge of the spouse's behavior or actions, and eve communications, provided they were not confidential

Answer 378

applies in criminal cases only and says that a witness spouse can't be forced to testify against a defendant-spouse in a criminal case as to any communications made between the 2사람 during or before their marriage.

Answer 379

1. This applies only a criminal cases, 2. You cannot prevent your spouse from testifying if they waive this privilege. 3. The privilege ends upon divorce. 4. It covers all information learned during and before the marriage. 5. This privilege is not available if the gov grants the defendant spouse immunity; so if your golden retriever husband is not in danger of being in trouble you can be forced to testify against him.

Answer 380

If the gov only gives the witness spouse immunity, the privilege stands and you can still refused to testify against your man, even if they give you immunity

Answer 381

1. It helps me remember that the spouse can testify if they want to; but if they are faithful lover; they do not have to.

Answer 382

The marital communications privilege applies in criminal and civil cases and says that one spouse may not even if they want to testify to any confidential communications between the couple during and valid marriage unless the other spouse waives the marriage.

Answer 383

1. This privilege stays even if the marriage ends. 2. Both spouses hodl the privilege and can use it to stop each other from testifying. 3. The privilege survives divorce. 4. The communication actually must be confidential.o

Answer 384

민/형 다 됨. Defendant can prevent his spouse from talking about confidential pillow talk.

Answer 385

1. Violence agaisnt spouse children: veil will be pierced and privilege dies. 2. Communications where both spouses are planning to commit a crime or in furtherance of a crime... not just one. Both. 3. If one spouse is getting money from the illegal activity of another spouse; the privilege around those communications no longer stands. 4. Communications to 3rd parties; once you tell a random person; the privilege is waived.

Answer 386

1. Conclusions, legal theories, mental impressions, opinions on teh discovery; strategy notes scribbled on a legal pad.

Answer 387

are discoverable. Not work product.

Answer 388

has to show good cause and it may be subject to an in camera review by the judge before it is tendered to the other side.

Answer 389

Communications. + Confidential.

Answer 390

Goat lawyer can be called to the stand to testify that the client was smoking crack. 즉, 마약 중독자가 변호사 사무실에 와서 마약을 피면, 그 행동은 Attorney client privilege의 대상이 아님. Confidential communication만. (즉 대화 내용).

Answer 391

emails, letters, etc.... PROTECTED. Attorney client privilege.

Answer 392

If the attorney is the last link connecting the client to the crime; then they do not have to give up the client name.

Answer 393

Survives DEATH of the client.

Answer 394

when you are using a lawyer's service to further a future crime of fraud which you haven't committed yet.

Answer 395

if you have already committed the damn crime you can seek advice on that.

Answer 396

Doing a Ponzi Scheme in the future and usign his advice to further that, the privilege does not apply.

Answer 397

conceal evidence; it wouldn't be protected.

Answer 398

It won't be protected.

Answer 399

such as shooting someone in his office, it wont' be protected.

Answer 400

if the client sues the attorney for malpractice; or the attorney sues the client for a fee; no more privilege.

Answer 401

This will not waive any privilege so long as you take reasonable steps to prevent and rectify the disclosure - reaching out and let the other side know to delete it and that you sent it on accident.

Answer 402

WAIVER of privilege.

Answer 403

the other communications or documents on this topic will come in.

Answer 404

If you reveal some shit on a certain topic; it will trigger a waiver of everything relating to that topic.

Answer 405

CEO waives the privilege on the source documents related to that selective disclosure.

Answer 406

it does not operate as a waiver against this information later on in litigation.

Answer 407

not waived.

Answer 408

1. Fee information. 2. Observations of a client's demeanor. 3. The client planning some illegal ass shit and trying to use you for help. 4. Identity (이름) of the client unless the identity would be the last link to a crime or reveal privileged communications. 5. The fact that you are representing the client. 6. Battles between 2 formerly jointly represetned co clients.

Answer 409

Fed courts do not recognize a doctor patient privilege; and it is not in the FRE. It will only be applied in diversity cases if a state has that privilege.

Answer 410

not required to disclose communications that happen int eh course of the professional relationship.

Answer 411

only communications involving medical or mental health treatment are protected.

Answer 412

You can't invoke the privilege when your mental or physical state is at issue. like in a personal injury accident case or a cliam for mental insanity.

Answer 413

the privilege is not waived liek a doctor's assistant.

Answer 414

it is waived.

Answer 415

must yield to the extent to which disclosure is essential to avert danger to others. the protective prvilege ends where the public peril begins.

Answer 416

Therapist owe a duty to specific, identifiable people who their patient is making threats about.

Answer 417

환자가 Invoke 못 하는 경우: 의사도 가능하지만> 엄밀히 말하면 의사의 변호사가 Invoke함.

Answer 418

1. Saying or doing criminal or illegal shit: not protected. 2. No duty to report mental health or physical health information unless the case puts it in issue (injury or insanity). 3. Specific threats to people : must report. 4. Non specific threats = don't need to report.

Answer 419

you cannot invoke this privilege and can be forced to testify in front of a grand jury.

Answer 420

It applies as long as you are asked a question that puts you in danger of criminal prosecution.

Answer 421

criminal. Not about the loss of employment or embarrassment or anything like that.

Answer 422

not admissible to prove negligence or somehow show that because they had insurance, they knew they were liable to fuckup in the future.

Answer 423

to show -> Ownership or Control.

Answer 424

fixes or repairs or changes you do after someone got injured by a product or condition.

Answer 425

the problem if they had been done before the injury.

Answer 426

To make repairs, To make things safer. --> Public Policy.

Answer 427

1. Makes the product safer, 2. Adds handrails, 3. Changes the design, 3. Change their own safety procedure; --> JURY CANNOT HEAR THAT.

Answer 428

not admissible to show someone is at fault or liable or to prove how much damages they cause in 1. The current case; and 2. Subsequent criminal prosecutions.

Answer 429

"너 내 가게 앞에서 방금 자빠진거 내가 미안해. 아까 내가 코카콜라 쏟은 자리야." --> 들어옴.

Answer 430

"이 병신 뜨네기야 약처먹고 남의 가게와서 니 혼자 지랄이야 내가 다 폰에 찍어놨어 이따가 틱톡에 올릴예정."

Answer 431

1. To impeach with bias. - the witness took some money in a settlement to testify; 2. To negate an accusation that you were delaying the case. - "we were in settlement discussions, I wasn't stalling."

Answer 432

would normally be admissible in a breach of contract action. - You can't bring it up just to immunize it from trial.

Answer 433

or issues involving honest and open discussions of liability; fine.

Answer 434

"I want $1 million for my client." The defense will be like, "I can't go above $500 k." The judge will be like, "your gues leg was amputed John and that is fucked up but this isn't worth a million dollars. you have got to be high to think that. Let's think about $700k." Call the insurance adjuster. Bring the client with the fucked up leg in the room. Then judge look at the client and be like, "you are not getting a million. I am sorry about your leg but they have great prosthetics now. $700k. Then the lawyer would get 33% + costs, client might walk away with $321,000 at the end with no leg.

Answer 435

An offer to plead guilty in a criminal case is never admissible, even in a civil case later on.

Answer 436

is not admissible.

Answer 437

Inadmissible. Law wants to encourage people to offer to pay medical expenses when an accident occurs. These offers are not admissible to prove culpable conduct.

Answer 438

Opposing party admission. (In civil case)

Answer 439

The part about the cat is admissible as an opposing party admission. --> Disputed claim이던, not disputed claim 무관

Answer 440

Compromise, (Disputed)., Medical (Not Disputed).

Answer 441

we want people to be nice and offer to pay.

Answer 442

coming in.

Answer 443

When we are in a civil or criminal proceeding where sexual harassment or rape is alleged (or any other type of sexual misconduct) we CANNOT bring in evidence of the past sexual behavior of the victim unless: 1. The other side is put on notice and it is relevant to the identity of the alleged rapist or 2. The other side is put on Notice and it relates to past sexual behavior between the victim and the accused rapist.

Answer 444

We are not allowed to bring in evidence of opinion or reputation evidence showing that the victim was sexually promiscuous or dressed in a certain way.

Answer 445

1. To prove s other than the def was the source of physical evidence (that is semen or injury) so long as the relationship occurred at roughly the same time as the alleged incident with the accused rapist. 2. If def is claiming consent and only when def is claiming consent. to show that the victim consented to the sexual behavior at issue. 3. Finally if the victim says they are chaste.

Answer 446

the Victim's past sexual behavior is admissible if its probative value substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.

Answer 447

Doesn't cover accepted pleas, or sts made during negotiations that resulted in accepted pleas. Doesn't apply to sts made after ct accepts a plea but before its withdrawn. Doens't apply to sts made during police interrogations.

Answer 448

I do not wish to contend.

Answer 449

This evidence is not admissible against a defendant who made the plea participated in plea discussions. 1. Guilty plea that was later withdrawn. 2. No contest plea. 3. Sts made during proceedings for guilty plea later withdrawn or no contest plea; and 4. Sts made during plea discussions w/ lawyer or prosecution if discussions did not result in guilty pleea or resulte din later withdrawn guilt plea.

Answer 450

under oath, on record, with counsel present.

Answer 451

permits def to waive rules protections if done before entering plea nego.

Answer 452

A witness criminal conviction may be used for impeachment if ti was either a crime. 1. Punishable by death or more than a year in prison or 2. Involving a dishonest act or false statement.

Answer 453

If the conviction being used is absed on allowable punishement, relevant punishment is. 1. Maximum allowed by law. 2. Not the punishment that the witness received. Impeaching party may ask the witness about the prior conviction. 1. If witness denies or cannot remember; party may introduce record of conviction.

Answer 454

1. Name of the offense. 2. Date of the offense. 3. Witness punishment.

Answer 455

CROSS EXAMINE. 1. Act relates to character for truthfulness. 2. Party has plausible good faith basis. 3. Dishonest act bears directly on his truthfulness. Impeach! asking about it.

Answer 456

1. Party may ask witness about prior conduct. 2. Party may not introduce evidence outside witness own testimony to prove its occurred. --> R 403. applied.

Answer 457

Witness had bad reputation for truthfulness in witness community. Character witness must be sufficiently familiar wih reputation on the competent topic.

Answer 458

Character witness personal opinion about the another witness character for truthfulness. Character witness must know and be familiar with witness.

Answer 459

No R 403 test if it is dishonesty. 걍 들어옴.

Answer 460

1. Who is questioning. 2. Whether character is an essential element of a claim defense, or charge.

Answer 461

Evidence of a person's character is an essential element of a charge claim or defense then may be proven by evidence of relevant specific instances of conduct.

Answer 462

only if evidence of character is necessary to prove or disprove a charge claim or defense.

Answer 463

= Essential Character Element.

Answer 464

Defendant was a drug dealer. He killed his girlfriend: The prosecution had a motive for wanting girlfriend dead. Evidence of def's uncharged drug trafficking and girlfriend's knowledge is necessary to explain why he feared her cooperation with police and what he had to lose.

Answer 465

1. Necessary to explain crime charged or 2. Inextricably intertwined with evidence of the charged activity.

Answer 466

1. Strength of evidence. 2. Proximity in time between other act and current. 3. Degree of similarity btw other act and the alleged in current case.

Answer 467

If it is to proof Identity: --> R 404 imposes special notice requirement on prosecution if iot seeks to offer 404 b evidence for permissible purpose.

Answer 468

1. Special notice requirement on prosecution if it seeks to offer 404 b evidence for permissible purpose. The prosecution must 1. Give def reasonable notice of intention to offer the evidence at trial. 2. State permitted purpose for which prosecution intends to offer evidence and supporting reasoning, and 3. Give notice in writing prior to trial.

Answer 469

1. By the expert's testimony or admission. 2. By another expert's testimony. 3. By judicial notice.

Answer 470

A statement in a learned treatise may be read into evidence if it's relied on by an expert witness during direct examination or called into the attention of the expert during cross

Answer 471

Gatekeeper in deciding whether expert testimony is sufficiently reliable and helpful to be admitted. Judge's discretion is reviewable as an abuse of discretion. The jduge has a good deal of leeway.

Answer 472

Expert testimony = the same degree or rigor = expert's professional work.

Answer 473

So, a Learned Treatise.: read into evidence.

Answer 474

1. Sts made, adopted, or authorized by that party. 2. Sts made by party's agent, employees, or coconspirators during and within scope of relationship.

Answer 475

1. By party's agent or employee 2. During that relationship. 3. About a matter within the scope of that relationship

Answer 476

Some federal circuit courts appeal recognize an exception to the psychotherapist patient privilege if disclosure of a confidential communication is necessary to avoid serious harm to the patient or someone else.

Answer 477

1. Civil commitment proceedings, 2) court ordered examinations, 3) lawsuits in which patients place their psychological state at issue.

Answer 478

matter of federal common law.

Answer 479

the exam is privileged on the basis of the attorney client privilege, rather than any doctor patient privilege.

Answer 480

corporate attorney client privilege

Answer 481

The material circumstances must be substantially identical, and the proponent of the evidence must establish the similarity.

Answer 482

1. Was made at or near the time of the event; 2. Was made by or based on information from someone with knowledge acting in the regular course of business. 3. Was kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity; and 4. Was created as a regular practice of that business.

Answer 483

By calling the custodian of the records, calling a different qualified witness, or offering a certification.

Answer 484

if the opponent shows that the source of the informatio or the method or circumstances of preparing the record indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

Answer 485

1. Activities of the office; 2. A matter observed by a public official while under a legal duty to report; excluding matters observed by law enforcement officers if being offered in a criminal case; or 3. Any civil case or criminal case if offered against the government, findings resulting from a legally authorized investigation.

Answer 486

FRE does not distinguish. Common law does.

Evidence Flashcards

(518 cards)