Evidence

Question 1

Form

Answer 1

Objections at trial should be made after the question, but before the answer, if the question calls for inadmissible matter. Here,

Question 2

Objection - Leading

Answer 2

A leading question is one that suggests the answer. Leading questions are not allowed on direct examination, unless the witness is adverse, hostile, or needs special help (minors). Here,

Question 3

Objection - Assumes Facts Not in Evidence

Answer 3

Whenever a question incorporates facts that have not been entered into evidence, the question is impermissible. Here,

Question 4

Objection - Non-responsive

Answer 4

A non-responsive answer doesn’t answer the question asked or gives more information in the answer than what is asked for. Here,

Question 5

Objection - Non-responsive: Motion to Strike

Answer 5

Counsel should move to strike everything beyond the “yes” since the remainder of the response is “non-responsive” to the question. Here,

Question 6

Objection - Calls for a Narrative

Answer 6

A question calls for a narrative if it is open-ended and overbroad. This promotes short responses from the witness that do not contain relevant and prejudicial information. Here,

Question 7

Objection - Argumentative

Answer 7

A question is argumentative if it tries to make an argument instead of seeking an answer. Here,

Question 8

Objection - Sepculation

Answer 8

Speculation occurs when the W is guessing at the answer and has no personal knowledge of the answer. A witness is not allowed to speculate. Here,

Question 9

Objection - Compound

Answer 9

A compound question is one that asks multiple questions, yet request only one response for all the questions. Compound questions are NOT allowed. Here,

Question 10

Objection - Outside the Scope of Direct

Answer 10

Cross-examination is generally limited to 1) the scope of direct examination, including all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from it, and 2) testing the credibility of the witness. Here,

Question 11

Purpose

Answer 11

Are there any issues with WHY the evidence is being presented?

Question 12

Purpose - Relevance

Answer 12

Evidence is logically relevant if it tends to make the existence of a material fact more or less probable. In CA, the material fact must be in dispute for it to be logically relevant. However, the court has discretion to exclude otherwise relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its risk of unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. Here,

Question 13

Purpose - Relevance: Similar Occurrence (PIP INC)

Answer 13

Evidence is usually irrelevant if it does not relate to the same time, event, or person in controversy. However, similar prior occurrences can be relevant to prove 1) pre-existing injury, 2) impossibility (rebut), 3) property value, 4) intent, 5) notice (or lack of), and 6) causation. Here,

Question 14

Purpose - Relevance: CA Prop 8 (Truth in Evidence)

Answer 14

Prop 8 applies to CA criminal cases, and it allows all relevant evidence to be admissible UNLESS the evidence relates to hearsay, privilege, secondary evidence rule, or rape victim. However, the judge may nevertheless exclude the Prop 8 evidence under CED 352 after applying a balancing test. Here,

Question 15

Purpose - Public Policy Reasons (LOOSE)

Answer 15

Evidence that is relevant may still be excluded based on public policy reasons. Here,

Question 16

Purpose - Public Policy Reasons (LOOSE): Liability Insurance

Answer 16

Evidence of insurance is NOT admissible to prove negligence or an ability to pay, but insurance is admissible to prove ownership and control, or to impeach. The purpose of this rule is to encourage people to carry insurance. Here,

Question 17

Purpose - Public Policy Reasons (LOOSE): Offers to Settle

Answer 17

In civil cases, settlements and related negotiations are inadmissible to prove liability. There must be an actual or threatened claim for this exception to apply. The purpose is to encourage settlements out of court. In CA, discussions during mediation proceedings are also inadmissible.

In criminal cases, withdrawn pleas and related negotiations are inadmissible to prove guilt. This supports the public policy of encouraging pleas out of court. Under Prop 8, this evidence may be admissible, but the courts will balance unfair prejudice. Here,

Question 18

Purpose - Public Policy Reasons (LOOSE): Offers to Pay Medical Expenses

Answer 18

Payment or offers to pay medical expenses are inadmissible to prove liability, but related statements of fact by the D are admissible.

In CA, both statements are excluded. Here,

Question 19

Purpose - Public Policy Reasons (LOOSE): Subsequent Remedial Measures

Answer 19

Evidence of repairs or other precautionary measures made following an injury is not admissible unless it is to 1) prove ownership or control, 2) rebut a claim that the precaution was not feasible, or 3) prove that the opposing party has destroyed the evidence. Here,

In CA, evidence that a product was redesigned following an accident is admissible to prove the original design was defective, but not admissible to prove negligence. Here,

Question 20

Purpose - Public Policy Reasons (LOOSE): CA ONLY Expressions of Sympathy

Answer 20

Statements expressing sympathy for pain or injury to an accident victim are not admissible, but statements of fault made with the expression of sympathy are admissible. Here,

Question 21

Purpose - Character Evidence

Answer 21

Generally evidence of a person’s character or general disposition is inadmissible to prove that a person acted in conformity with that character occasion. However, certain exceptions apply depending on if it is a civil or criminal case. Depending on the circumstances, character evidence can be introduced by reputation and opinion testimony, or by specific prior acts.

Question 22

Purpose - Character Evidence: Civil Case

Answer 22

In a civil case, character evidence is admissible if character is directly at issue in the case, such as a defamation, fraud, tort battery (violence defense), etc. Under FRE, character evidence is also allowed for claims based on sexual assault or child molestation, but under CA rules this is not an exception. Here,

Question 23

Purpose - Character Evidence: Civil Case - Habit

Answer 23

Evidence of a person’s habits are admissible to prove the likelihood of a person’s conduct on a particular occasion. As opposed to character evidence about a person’s general disposition, habit evidence focuses on a person’s frequent and repetitive conduct. Such conduct in a business setting is called Routine Practice. Here,

Question 24

Purpose - Character Evidence: Criminal Case

Answer 24

In a criminal case, the prosecution cannot initiate evidence of a D’s bad character or prior crimes merely to show D was more likely to commit the crime charged. However, if D first puts his character in issue then he “opens the door” to character evidence. Here,

Question 25

Purpose - Character Evidence: Criminal Case - Introduced By Prosecution

Answer 25

One exception to this rule is that prosecutors can be the first to introduce evidence of the D's bad character in a sexual assault or child molestation case, of if the D pleads self-defense in homicide case (P can evidence his peaceful character). Additionally, in CA, prosecutors can offer evidence of prior domestic violence in crime involving domestic violence. Here,

Question 26

Purpose - Character Evidence: Criminal Case - Defendant Opens Door

Answer 26

D can be the first to offer evidence of a pertinent trait related to the crime. In CA, the D can raise any trait. This evidence can be introduced through reputation and opinion testimony only on direct examination. On cross, the prosecution can rebut the D's good character evidence using reputation and opinion testimony AND specific prior acts. In CA, specific instance evidence is not allowed on cross or direct. Here,

Question 27

Purpose - Character Evidence: Criminal Case - Victim Character Evidence

Answer 27

Except in rape cases, D may introduce reputation or opinion evidence of the victim's bad character when it is relevant to show D's innocence. Here, Once D has introduced this evidence, prosecution may counter with reputation or opinion evidence of: 1) victim's good character, or 2) D's bad character for the same trait. Here,

Question 28

Purpose - Character Evidence: Specific Acts (MIMIC)

Answer 28

Evidence of a person's prior crimes or misconduct can be admissible if they are relevant to some issue other than the D's character or disposition to commit the crime. Therefore, the following evidence is admissible as an exception to character evidence: Motive, Intent, Absence of Mistake, Identity, Knowledge, Opportunity, Preparation, Plan, and Scheme. Here,

Question 29

W Credibility: Competency

Answer 29

A witness must be competent to testify by having PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of the matter with present recollection (refreshing allowed) and must be willing to take an oath to tell the truth. Personal knowledge can be perceived with senses, even if it's an imperfect perception. Here, In CA, the W must be able to understand the legal duty to tell the truth - know right from wrong. Here,

Question 30

W Credibility: Impeachment

Answer 30

Impeachment can be used to undermine the credibility of a W. A W may be impeached by either cross-examination (direct contradiction) or extrinsic evidence such as 1) reputation/opinion testimony of a contradicting W, 2) prior inconsistent statements, 3) evidence of bias/motive, 4) prior convictions, or 5) prior bad acts of dishonesty. Here,

Question 31

W Credibility: Impeachment - Prior Inconsistent Statements

Answer 31

A party's prior statements inconsistent with his present testimony is admissible only for impeachment purposes, but not as substantive truth (hearsay). However, if the statement was made under oath at a prior proceeding, and if the witness is given the opportunity to explain or deny the inconsistency, then the prior inconsistent statement is admissible non-hearsay and may be admitted to prove the truth of what is asserted. Here, In CA, inconsistent statements can be offered as substantive evidence of its truth. It need not be under oath. Here,

Question 32

W Credibility: Bias/Motive

Answer 32

Evidence that a witness is biased is always admissible (including extrinsic) because it tends to show that the W has motive to lie. Here,

Question 33

W Credibility: Character for Dishonesty - Reputation or Opinion for Dishonesty

Answer 33

A W may be impeached by showing that he has a poor reputation for truthfulness. Extrinsic evidence is allowed. Further, the impeaching W may offer his own opinion as to the truthfulness of the W he's trying to impeach. Here,

Question 34

W Credibility: Character for Dishonesty - Prior Criminal Conviction

Answer 34

A W may be impeached by proof of a conviction for any crime involving dishonesty within 10 years (no court discretion). For felony conviction not involving dishonesty, the court has discretion to balance the admissibility based on probative value vs. unfair prejudice. All other misdemeanors not involving dishonesty are inadmissible. Here, In CA, under Prop 8, a W can be impeached for any misdemeanor criminal conviction involving moral turpitude after the court applies a balancing test, e.g. perjury, theft, violence, sexual crimes, etc. In civil cases, only felony convictions involving moral turpitude (not misdemeanors) are admissible. Here,

Question 35

W Credibility: Character for Dishonesty - Bad Acts of Dishonesty

Answer 35

A W may be impeached on cross examination by an act of dishonesty that did not result in a conviction, however, the cross-examiner must only do so in good faith, the court has discretion to balance interests, and no extrinsic evidence can be used to prove the bad act, even if the W denies the bad act. Here, In CA, under Prop 8, a witness can be impeached for bad acts only in a criminal case if the misconduct is an act of moral turpitude, subject to a balancing test. No bad acts admissible in civil cases. Here,

Question 36

W Credibility: Rehabilitation

Answer 36

After the W's credibility is attacked, the W can be rehabilitated through evidence o his honesty and evidence of prior consistent statements made before the W had a motive to lie. Here,

Question 37

W Testimony - Lay Opinion

Answer 37

Opinion testimony by a lay witness is admissible when it is: 1) helpful to the jury, 2) rationally based on W's perception, and 3) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. Lay Ws cannot give legal opinions. Here,

Question 38

W Testimony - Expert Opinion

Answer 38

Opinion testimony by an expert is admissible when it is: 1) helpful to the jury, 2) expert is qualified, and 3) the expert has factual basis and reasonable certainty regarding his opinion. Here,

Question 39

W Testimony - Expert Opinion: Proper Factual Basis

Answer 39

An expert has a proper factual basis if the opinion is formed based on material 1) admitted into evidence, 2) personal knowledge, or 3) reasonable reliance on inadmissible evidence (e.g. a lab report). Here,

Question 40

W Testimony - Expert Opinion: Reasonable Degree of Certainty

Answer 40

An expert opinion must be based on reliable principles, reliably applied. Under Federal Daubert Standard, reliable evidence is 1) peer reviewed, 2) tested and subject to re-testing, 3) low error rate, and 4) reasonable level of acceptance in the field. Under CA Kelly-Frye Standard, reliable evidence must be based on principles generally accepted as valid and reliable by experts in the field. Here,

Question 41

Document Cred: Authentication

Answer 41

Documentary evidence must be authenticated by proving the evidence is what the proponent claims it to be. The proof must merely be sufficient to support a jury finding of genuineness. Here,

Question 42

Document Cred: Authentication - Photos

Answer 42

Photos may be authenticated by a witness with personal knowledge who can testify the depiction is a fair and accurate representation of what the W saw. Here,

Question 43

Document Cred: Authentication - Voice

Answer 43

A voice may be authenticated by anyone who has heard the voice at any time. A W may become familiar with a voice in preparation of litigation. Here,

Question 44

Document Cred: Authentication - Handwriting/Signature

Answer 44

Handwriting may be authenticated by an eyewitness, expert, or a non expert who is familiar with the D's handwriting prior to litigation. Circumstantial evidence of signature also admissible. Here,

Question 45

Document Cred: Authentication - Self-Authenticating Documents

Answer 45

Certain writings are said to "prove themselves" Extrinsic evidence is not required for 1) certified copies of public records, 2) official publications, 3) newspapers and periodicals, 4) trade inscriptions, 5) acknowledged documents, 6) commercial paper, and 7) certified business records. Here,

Question 46

Document Cred: Authentication - Chain of Custody

Answer 46

Items that are non-unique and facially indistinguishable from other items can be authenticated by proving a substantially unbroken chain of possession. Here,

Question 47

Documents: Best Evidence Rule (Secondary Evidence Rule)

Answer 47

To prove the material terms of a writing, the original writing must be produced (included duplicates of original). Secondary evidence of the writing is admissible ONLY if there is a valid explanation for the unavailability of the original. Here,

Question 48

Documents: Refreshed Recollection

Answer 48

A witness may use anything for the purpose of refreshing his recollection, however, he may not read from the writing while testifying. Whenever a W has used a writing to refresh his memory on the stand, the adverse party is entitled to have the writing produced at trial. Here,

Question 49

Documents: Recorded Recollection Exception to Hearsay

Answer 49

An out of court statement in a document may be read into evidence if the witness had personal knowledge, and the document was made or adopted by the witness at a time when the facts were fresh to the witness, and presently the witness has insufficient memory to testify about the matters in the document. Here,

Question 50

Judicial Notice

Answer 50

Judicial notice is the recognition of a fact as true without formal evidence because it is either a matter of common knowledge in the community or capable of easy accurate verification. In criminal cases, judicially noticed facts satisfy the burden of proof, but are not conclusive. In civil cases, judicially noticed facts can be conclusive. Here,

Question 51

Hearsay

Answer 51

Hearsay is an out of court statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at trial, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Statements can be written, verbal, or conduct by person (no animals/machine communication). Hearsay is excluded because there is no opportunity to cross examine the W so there are concerns about reliability of the statement. Here, The rule against hearsay is exempted from Proposition 8. Here,

Question 52

Multiple Hearsay

Answer 52

Multiple hearsay is hearsay within hearsay. For the entire statement or document to come in, all levels of hearsay must be admissible. Here,

Question 53

Not Hearsay

Answer 53

Out of court statements are NOT hearsay if they are not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Here,

Question 54

Non-Hearsay: Legal Operative Facts

Answer 54

Words that form a contract or constitute defamation are not hearsay because they are offered to prove the statement was made, not for its truth. Here,

Question 55

Non-Hearsay: Impeachment

Answer 55

Out of court statements offered to question the credibility of the in-court witness are admissible because they are offered for impeachment, not for its truth. Here,

Question 56

Non-Hearsay: Circumstantial Evidence of Declarant's State of Mind

Answer 56

Out of court statements that show a declarant's state of mind (e.g. knowledge, fear, sanity) are admissible to show the declarant's then state of mind, not for the truth of the statement. Here,

Question 57

Non-Hearsay: Effect on Listener

Answer 57

Out of court statement that shows knowledge/notice of danger is admissible because it is offered to show the effect on the listener, not for its truth Here,

Question 58

Hearsay Exemptions/Exceptions: Prior Identification

Answer 58

A prior identification is non-hearsay so long as the declarant is available to be cross-examined. Here, CA also requires 1) the identification must be made while the event was fresh in W's memory and 2) W must testify as to prior identification and confirm that it was his opinion when made. Here,

Question 59

Hearsay Exemptions/Exceptions: Prior Inconsistent Statement

Answer 59

A prior statement given under oath at a prior proceeding is admissible non-hearsay if it is inconsistent with the declarant's in-court testimony. This is for impeachment purpose, not for substantive purposes. (look for combos with Former Testimony and Excited Utterance) Here,

Question 60

Hearsay Exemptions/Exceptions: Opposing Part Statement (Admission)

Answer 60

An opposing party's statement is non-hearsay under the federal rules. The statement need not be against interest. CA recognizes admissions by a party opponent as an exception to hearsay and not "non-hearsay". Here,

Question 61

Hearsay Exemptions/Exceptions: Opposing Party Statement - Vicarious ADmission

Answer 61

A statement of an authorized spokesperson or employee of the party concerning a matter within the scope of employment can be admitted against the party as an admission. CA assigns employee vicarious admissions only where negligent conduct of employee is basis for employer's liability under respondeat superior. Here,

Question 62

Hearsay Exemptions/Exceptions: Opposing Party Statement - Adoptive Admission (Silence)

Answer 62

Silence is treated as an admission only if: 1) the party heard and understood the statement, 2) the party was physically and mentally capable of denying the statement, and 3) a reasonable person would have denied the accusation. Here,

Question 63

Hearsay Exemptions/Exceptions: Co-Conspirator Admission

Answer 63

Statements of one conspirator, made to a third-party, in furtherance of a conspiracy to commit a crime or civil wrong are admissible against all other co-conspirators. However, there must have been an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Here,

Question 64

Hearsay Exceptions: Unavailability Exceptions

Answer 64

A declarant is unavailable if he: 1) is exempt from testifying because of privilege, 2) refuses to testify despite a court order, 3) cannot remember the statement, 4) unable to testify due to death or illness, or 5) is beyond the reach of a court subpoena. Here, CA, refusing to testify or stating that you cannot remember are NOT grounds for unavailability. CA does allow unavailability for TOTAL memory loss or refuses to testify out of fear. Here,

Question 65

Hearsay Exceptions: Unavailability - Dying Declaration

Answer 65

A statement made by a now unavailable declarant is admissible if the statement was made while the declarant believed death was imminent and the statement concerned the cause or circumstances of the impending death. Here, CA, a dying declaration is admissible in all civil and criminal cases, where it is relevant to know what killed the declarant. Also, the declarant MUST BE DEAD to use this exception. Here,

Question 66

Hearsay Exceptions: Unavailability - Statement Against Interest

Answer 66

A statement of an unavailable witness is admissible if, at the time it was made, it was against his pecuniary, proprietary, or penal interest. Here, CA, the statement can also be against the social interest of the declarant. Here,

Question 67

Hearsay Exceptions: Unavailability - Former Testimony

Answer 67

The former testimony of a now-unavailable W is admissible if: 1) the party against whom the testimony is offered (or someone in privity) had an opportunity to cross-exam at the earlier proceeding, and 2) had a similar motive to cross-examine. Here, CA, inconsistent statements can be offered as substantive evidence of its truth. It need not be under oath. Deposition testimony in the same civil action is admissible for all purposes if deponent is unavailable. Here,

Question 68

Hearsay Exceptions: Unavailability - OJ Exception (CA ONLY)) watch out for Confrontation Clause Issues

Answer 68

A statement made at or near time of injury or threat, by unavailable declarant, describing or explaining infliction or threat, in writing or recorded or made to police or medical professional, under trustworthy circumstances, OK. Here,

Question 69

Reliability Exceptions: Present Sense Impression (FRE ONLY)

Answer 69

A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while declarant was perceiving the event or immediately thereafter, is admissible. Here,

Question 70

Reliability Exceptions: Contemporaneous Statement (CA ONLY)

Answer 70

A contemporaneous statement explaining the conduct of the declarant while the declarant was engaged in that conduct. Here,

Question 71

Reliability Exceptions: Excited Utterance (CA: Spontaneous Statement)

Answer 71

A statement concerning a starling event or condition, made while the declarant is still under the stress of the excitement, is admissible. The amount of time after the event is not important, as long as the speaker is still under the stress of the event. Here,

Question 72

Reliability Exceptions: Medical Diagnosis or Treatment

Answer 72

Statements concerning physical or mental conditions, usually to medical personnel, for purposes of diagnosis or treatment are admissible. Only the portions of the statement made pertinent to medical treatment/diagnosis are admissible - no connected legal statements. Here, CA, rule is more narrow, and only allows statements made for medical treatment by a minor describing an act of child abuse or neglect. Here

Question 73

Reliability Exceptions: Present Mental or Physical Condition

Answer 73

A statement of the declarant's then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent), physical condition or emotion is admissible. A statement of intent is considered a declaration of a state of m ind and it can be inferred the declarant acted in accordance with his stated intention. Here,

Question 74

Documentary Exceptions: Recollection Recorded

Answer 74

When a witness is unable to recall an event to enable full and accurate testimony, a writing may be read into evidence once a proper foundation is laid. The foundation requires that: 1) the W at one time had personal knowledge of the facts recited in the writing, 2) the writing was either made by W, made at W's direction, or adopted by W, 3) the writing was timely made, 4) the writing is accurate, and 5) the witness has insufficient recollection to testify. Here,

Question 75

Documentary Exceptions: Official Records (prepared by Gov)

Answer 75

A record prepared by a public employee within the course of employment is admissible if is 1) describes activities or policies, 2) describes matters observed pursuant to a legal duty (police report), or 3) factual finds resulting from a legal investigation. The FRE does not allow police reports to be used in criminal cases, but CA does not place the same restriction. Here,

Question 76

Documentary Exceptions: Business Records

Answer 76

A business record is any writing made in the regular course of business, made at or near the time of the event by a person with knowledge of the facts, and it was regular practice to make such a record. This is considered reliable because employees acting in the scope of their employment have an incentive to be truthful. The document should be authorized by the custodian of records or a qualified witness. Here,

Question 77

Documentary Exceptions: Learned Treatise

Answer 77

Statements from an authoritative work are admitted if called to the attention of the expert witness and established as a reliable authority. Here, CA, facts of general interest and notoriety found in published maps or charts, or books of history and science. Here,

Question 78

Documentary Exceptions: Ancient Documents

Answer 78

Statements in documents that are 20 years old or more are admissible. Here, CA, it is 30 years. Here,

Question 79

Documentary Exceptions: Public Records

Answer 79

Records and reports of public agencies regarding their activities are admissible so long as the writing was made within the scope of the duty of the public employee and made at or nrea the time of the event. Here,

Question 80

FRE Catch-All Exception

Answer 80

The only other possibility for admission would be the federal catch-all exception. This exception requires the statement to have: 1) circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, 2) to be offered on a material fact, and must be more probative to that fact than any other evidence so that the interest of justice will be served by its admission, and 3) the proponent must give notice of the statement in advance of trial to the adverse party. Here,

Question 81

Privileges

Answer 81

Prop 8 does not affect the admissibility of this evidence since ALL privileges are exempt from Prop 8.

Question 82

Privileges: Attorney-Client

Answer 82

Confidential communications between a client and their attorney or representative for the purposes of professional legal services are inadmissible unless waived by the client. The privilege does not apply to legal services in connection with a crime or in an attorney client dispute for malpractice. Under FRE, the privilege survives the death of the client, but in CA, the privilege dies with the client. Also in CA, privilege does not apply where lawyer reasonably believes disclosure of communication is necessary to prevent a crime that is likely to result in death or substantial bodily harm. Here,

Question 83

Privileges: Spousal Immunity (currently married)

Answer 83

One spouse cannot be compelled to testify against the other spouse in a criminal proceeding. The W spouse "owns" the immunity and it can only be claimed during marriage, but covers information both before and during marriage. CA, the privilege extends to civil cases, registered domestic partnerships, and prevents spouse from even taking the stand if they don't want to. Here,

Question 84

Privileges: Confidential Mariital Communications

Answer 84

Communications made during the marital relationship are privileged in both civil and criminal proceedings. The marital communications cover statements made during marriage, even if divorced at the time of trial. Both spouses own this privilege and may prevent the other from disclosing a confidential marital communication. Here, The privilege DOES NOT apply if the communication was made, in whole or in part, to enable or aid anyone to commit a or plan to commit a crime or fraud. CA, privilege extends to registered domestic partners as well. Here,

Question 85

Privileges: Doctor-Patient Privilege

Answer 85

Confidential communications between a doctor and his patient in the course of treatment/diagnoses are privileged. This privilege does not apply in personal injury cases where physical injuries are at issue, nor does it apply to criminal cases where the doctor is required to report to a public office (e.g. gunshot wound). Here,

Question 86

Privileges: Psychotherapist/Social Worker-Patient Privilege

Answer 86

This privilege operates the same as the attorney-client privilege. Here,

Question 87

Privileges: Clergy Privilege

Answer 87

A privilege exists for statements made to a member of the clergy while he is acting in his capacity as a spiritual advisor. Here,

Question 88

Privileges: Privilege Against Self-Incrimination (5th A)

Answer 88

A W cannot be compelled to testify against himself. Any W compelled to appear in a civil or criminal proceeding may refuse to give an answer that ties the W to the commission of a crime. Here,

Question 89

Privileges: Governmental Privilege

Answer 89

Official information not otherwise open to the public or the identity of an informer may be protected by a privilege for the government. No privileges exist if the identity of the informer is voluntarily disclosed by a holder of the privilege. Here,

Question 90

Privileges: Eavesdroppers (CA)

Answer 90

In CA, a privilege holder can stop an eavesdropper from revealing confidential information. Here,

Question 91

Privileges: Other CA Privileges

Answer 91

In CA, courts also recognize privilege for 1) confidential communication between a counselor and a victim of a sexual assault or domestic violence, 2) penitential communications between penitent and clergy, and 3) immunity from contempt of court for news reporter who refuses to disclose sources. Here,