Evidence FlashCards
(125 cards)
1
Q
Rule 602: Personal Knowledge
A
Witness can only testify to something they have personal knowledge of. (Does not apply to a witness’s expert testimony)
Sufficient to support a finding that W has personal knowledge
2
Q
Rule 611(a): Court Controls
A
The court exercises reasonable control over the mode and order of examining witnesses. This is to get to the truth, not waste time, and protect witnesses from being harassed.
3
Q
Rule 611(b): Scope of Cross-Examination
A
Cross-examination cannot go beyond the subject matter of the direct examination or the witness’s credibility. However, the court MAY allow inquiry into additional matters (gotta be persuasive)
4
Q
Rule 613(c): Leading Questions
A
Don’t use leading questions on direct examination unless you’re directing witness’s testimony.
You can use leading questions on cross
You can use leading questions on direct if there’s a hostile witness/adverse party.
5
Q
Rule 612: Refreshing a Witness’s Memory, and what are the 5 steps?
A
Can do it during testimony or before.
5 steps:
1) say they don’t remember
2) ask if seeing doc would help
3) ask if they recognize doc
4) show opposing counsel the doc
5) have them read it and ask if it helped
The adverse party gets to have the writing produced before the hearing and to cross-examine about it. If the writing is not produced, court may issue an appropriate order. (In crim case it might be mistrial)
6
Q
5 Forms of Impeachment?
A
- Bias/Interest
- Prior Inconsistent Statement
- Contradiction
- Sensory/Mental Incapacity
- Character for Untruthfulness
7
Q
Rule 607: Impeachment
A
Any party can impeach any witness.
8
Q
Rule 613: Prior Inconsistent Statement
A
You do not have to show or provide the prior inconsistent statement unless requested.
You can only bring in a prior inconsistent statement if the witness is given an opportunity to explain/deny the statement.
will get a limiting instruction to make sure it’s only used for impeachment purposes, not for the TotMA
9
Q
Rule 613: Extrinsic Evidence & Prior Inconsis. Statement
Which two are automatically non-collateral?
A
Extrinsic evidence is only allowed to prove prior inconsistent statement if it is a non-collateral (I.e. IMPORTANT TO THE CASE) matter.
Bias and Incapacity are automatically non-collateral.
10
Q
Rule 403: Excluding Evidence
A
You need to exclude evidence if the probative value is substantially outweighed by prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, or wasting time.
11
Q
608(a): Character for Truthfulness - Reputation/Opinion Evidence
A
You can attack or support a witness’s credibility by their reputation for a character of truthfulness or untruthfulness, or by an opinion about their character of truthfulness or untruthfulness.
However, evidence of truthful character is admissible only if their character has been attacked.
12
Q
608(b): Character for Truthfulness - Specific Instances of Conduct
A
EE not admissible to prove specific instances of W’s conduct to attack/support their character for truthfulness.
On cross-exam, you can ask about specific instances (non-convictions) of a witness’s character for truthfulness or untruthfulness if it’s probative of that character.
You can also ask them about another witness they have testified about.
13
Q
Rule 609(a)(1)(A): Criminal Conviction - Witness NOT the defendant
A
Any felony crime must be admitted.
14
Q
Rule 609(a)(1)(B): Criminal Conviction - Witness IS defendant
A
Must be admitted in a criminal case if the probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant.
15
Q
Rule 609(a)(2): Criminal Conviction - Dishonest Crimes
A
Must be admitted if dishonesty is an element of the crime (think fraud, perjury, etc). Applies to ANY witness.
16
Q
Rule 901: Authentication
A
Proponent of the evidence must produce circumstantial evidence “sufficient to support a finding” that the evidence is what it says it is.
Examples are voice experts, handwriting, witness with knowledge, distinctive characteristics, evidence of computer system, etc.
17
Q
Rule 902: Self-Authenticating Evidence
A
Evidence self-authenticates if it’s like an official, real document.
Think like public records, certified copies, etc. Signed and sealed rule.
18
Q
Rule 106: Completeness
A
If a party introduces all or part of a writing/recorded statement, adverse party can ask for the rest of it (like bringing in additional context).
Not oral statements. That’s 403
19
Q
Rule 405(a): Proving Character through Reputation/Opinion
A
You can bring in testimony about the person’s reputation or testimony in the form of opinion. On cross-exam, the court MAY allow an inquiry into relevant specific instances of the character’s conduct.
20
Q
Rule 405(b): Proving Character through Specific Instances
A
If a person’s character/character trait is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, you can use specific instances of the person’s conduct to prove the trait.
21
Q
Rule 404(a)(1): Character and Propensity Evidence
A
Evidence of a person’s character/trait is not admissible if used to show they acted a certain way on one occasion because of their character trait.
22
Q
Rule 404(a)(2): Character Evidence Exceptions in Criminal Case
A
(A) Defendant can offer evidence of their own pertinent trait;
(B) A defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s pertinent trait, and the prosecutor can rebut it and offer evidence of the defendant’s same trait; and
(C) In homicide cases, prosecutor can bring in evidence of victim’s peacefulness (to show they are not the first aggressor)
23
Q
Rule 404(b)(1): Specific Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts [INADMISSIBLE]
A
Evidence of crimes/wrongs can’t be used for propensity
24
Q
Rule 404(b)(2): Specific Crimes Wrongs, or Other Acts [ADMISSIBLE]
A
You can bring in specific acts for non-propensity purposes, such as: motive, opportunity, Modus Operandi, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, to prove identity, etc. Prosecutor must (before trial) provide reasonable notice they’re going to use the evidence.
25
Rule 406: Habit/Routine Practice
Used to prove a person/company acted in accordance with their habit/routine practice.
1) repeated response to a
2) specific stimulus/event
26
Rule 412: Rape Shield Law
Cannot bring in a rape victim's sexual history/predisposition. However, you can if you're trying to show the physical evidence is a result of sex with multiple partners or that they had history of consent.
27
Rules 413-415: Similar Sexual Assault Crimes
You can bring in specific conduct if they have committed sexual assault before, or child molestation if they are charged with a child molestation crime.
28
Rule 801(c): Definition of Hearsay
An out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
29
Non-Hearsay Purposes
1. Prior Inconsistent Statements
2. Effect on the Listener
3. Legally operative language
4. Circumstantial Evidence of State of Mind
5. Knowledge of the Speaker
30
801(d) recognizes two uses as "exemptions"
prior inconsistent statements
| opposing party statements
31
Rule 804 contains 5 exceptions and only applies if the witness is _______
unavailable
32
803 is the largest group. Does it hinge on availability?
No. 803 exceptions apply regardless of whether or not the declarant is available to testify.
33
807: Residual Exception
Courts will admit statements that fall just outside of a named exception because it is it not "covered" by said exception(s).
34
801(d)(1): Prior statements by a witness... 3 types!
1) prior inconsistent statements
2) prior consistent statements
3) identifications
35
801(d)(1) has two gatekeeper requirements
declarant must be
1) available to testify and
2) be subject to cross-examination
36
801(d)(1): what's subject to cross-examination?
appearing on the stand, taking an oath, and a willingness to answer questions
memory loss, fake or real, is subject to C-E
refusing to answer because of privilege? not subject to C-E
refusing to answer generally? not subject to C-E
37
What is the truth of the matter asserted?
the proponent wants the finder of fact to use and believe the contents of the statement
38
what do you do if you have both hearsay and non-hearsay purposes?
limiting instructions and consider rule 403
39
801(a) - what's a statement?
1) an oral assertion, written assertion, or non-verbal conduct
2) it must be that the declarant intended his conduct assert something
40
801(a): is an audiotape a statement?
most do contain verbal assertions that qualify as statements. If being offered for the truth of the matter asserted within, it qualifies as hearsay
41
801(a): are pictures and videos statements?
typically don't portray an assertion, even if containing spoken/written words. BUT it could, and if offered for its' truth...it's subject to hearsay.
42
801(a): are machine readouts a statement?
typically not, but IF a person communicated a fact through that machine, then it is a statement.
43
Watch out for the implied assertion problem (majority says never qualifies as hearsay)
an action or statement in response to a question or demand can imply something while not technically asserting that point.
Most say NEVER hearsay, some say always hearsay, and some use the factors
44
3 factors regarding implied assertions
1) degree of indirectness (how far apart is matter to be proved from what the declarant intended to assert?)
2) was statement idle chatter, or did it have a performative aspect?
3) is statement offered to prove the declarant's mental state? or to prove a fact in the external world?
45
Who decides if something fits into a hearsay exception? what rule? by what standard?
the judge will decide under 104(a). The propenent has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that facts exist to support a hearsay exception
46
801(d)(1)(A) - prior inconsistent statements
2 gatekeeper rules AND
1) inconsistent with declarant's current testimony
2) given under penalty of perjury
3) at a proceeding
47
801(d)(1)(A) - prior inconsistent statements: what's a proceeding?
deposition, trial, or hearing are easy.
- we need some combination of an audience and a transcript
Grand jury hearing? yes
police interrogation? no
48
801(d)(1)(B) - prior consistent statements
2 gatekeepers AND
1) W's credibility for TRUTHFULNESS has been attacked,
AND
2) prior consistent statement has probative value in rehabilitating that credibility (and came before motive to lie)
49
801(d)(1)(C) - prior identifications
allows prior identifications of a person, even if W can't repeat the ID on the stand right now
50
803(1): present sense impression
statement describes or explains an event (no complex analysis)
made during or immediately after declarant perceived (602) it (only a few moments of leeway)
51
803(2): excited utterances
statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while declarant was (subjectively) still under the stress of excitement
52
803(2): excited utterances: the first complaint doctrine
in sexual assault cases, the government can get in an OOC complaint that the victim made
to rebut the inference that the victim never complained and was therefore okay with the sexual interaction.
Can't name attacker though, only used to show the complaint was made.
53
803(3): State of Mind
statements of declarant's then-existing...
state of mind OR emotional, sensory, physical condition
can't use to prove the truth of the fact remembered
54
803(3): 3 limitations
1) timing (must concern then-existing event/condition...PRESENT SENSE VERBIAGE)
2) content (declarant's own state of mind or condition)
3) purpose (can't be used to prove the fact remembered)
55
803(3): what's a state of mind?
reports about physical sensations, emotional states, cognitive schemes, but NO external conditions
56
803(3): SoM...what about circumstantial evidence of SoM?
statements about external facts sometimes are admissible to prove the state of mind...if we don't care about the truth of the matter asserted
57
803(3): SoM...looking backward vs. looking forward
can't look backward. can't use statement as basis for an inference of what caused that state of mind
we can look forward and use a statement as a basis for inferring how the acted
58
803(3) SoM...looking forward with another (Hillmon)
most states allow using SoM to prove the following actions of another
59
803(4): Medical Treatment (3 requirements)
1) must be made for medical diagnosis/treatment (subjective)
2) reasonably related to diagnosis/treatment (objective)
3) describes one of the following
- medical history
- present/past symptoms or sensations
- the inception or general cause
60
803(4): Medical Treatment
shouldn't wade into blaming a specific individual for a cause, unless the psychological treatment requires it (domestic or child sex abuse)
61
803(5): Recorded Recollection... availability of declarant and the two broad steps
Declarant must be available
1) specify when recorded recollection is admissible
2) how recollection is admissible
62
803(5): RR: WHEN RR is admissible (6 reqs)
1) in record
2) W is declarant or person who adopted statement
3) W must say she once knew info, and made record when she knew
4) W made record when knowledge was fresh
5) at time, record accurately reflected knowledge
6) W can no longer recall info well enough to testify fully and accurately
63
803(5): RR: HOW RR is admissible (2 reqs)
Proponent asks witness to read it into record, but cannot enter the record itself into evidence
OR
adverse party can enter record into evidence
64
What do we do with layered hearsay?
Find an exception or non-hearsay purpose for each layer
65
803(6): Biz Records (2 main reqs)
conducted activity must be regular, and keeping a record of said activity must be regular
66
803(6): Biz Records (6 elements)
1) record
2) from a business
3) recorder has personal knowledge at time data arose (or got info from one who did)
4) conducted activity must be regular, and keeping a record of said activity must be regular
5) qualified W introduces evidence into record
6) if circumstances show untrustworthiness, not admissible
67
803(6): Biz Records: what must qualified W testify to?
Record was kept in course of a regularly conducted business activity
Record was kept as a part of regular practice
Record was made by someone with PK of the recorded information OR from information by a person with PK
68
803(6): Biz Records: how to incorporate outsider information into record
[1] the business “incorporated the records of [the outsiders] into its own”
[2] the business “relied upon those records in its day-to-day operations”; and
[3] “there are other strong indicia of reliability.”
69
803(8): Public Records
…a record or statement of a public office if:
(A) it sets out
(i) the office’s activities
(ii) a matter observed while under a legal duty to report, but not including in a criminal case a matter observed by law-enforcement personnel
(iii) in a civil case or against the government in a criminal case, factual findings from a legally authorized investigation;
AND
(B) the opponent doesn’t show that the source of info or surrounding circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness
70
803(8): Public Records: activities
documentation of all activities engaged in by public agency
71
803(8): Public Records: matters observed
concrete facts that agency has a duty to report
except those made by law enforcement when offered by prosecution in criminal cases
72
803(8): Public Records: factual findings from a legally authorized investigation
any statements in the report, including conclusions and opinions of investigator (even if they base theirs off of 3rd parties)
NOT admissible against a ∆ in a criminal case
73
803(8): Public Records vs 803(6): Business Records
Some courts won’t allow something that failed the public records exception get in through the lower bar of the business records exception
In those jurisdictions, courts can allow the piece in under the ministerial records exception (Oates)
Some courts will let you go through business records though.
74
103(a)(1)(2): preserving a claim of error
(1) if ruling admits evidence, timely and specifically object
(2) if ruling excludes evidence, explain relevancy of evidence and why their objection is unsound
75
402
relevant evidence is admissible!
Unless a rule says otherwise.
If irrelevant, inadmissible
76
401: what's relevant
if it has any tendancy to make a fact of consequence more/less probable than it would be without the evidence
Does it move the needle?
77
401: Relevancy: story and form
Old Chief allows the concept of telling a story to the jury, and that can make some facts more logically important
78
401: Relevancy: 2 ways to open the door
1) A introduces evidence that makes B's evidence more probative than it was before
2) A does something wrong, and B's (although not logically relevant) is needed to cure that wrong
79
615: Excluding Witnesses
If petitioned, court must remove unless they're a party, an expert, an officer of an involved corporation, or someone authorized by § to remain (crime victims).
80
609(b): prior convictions older than 10 year olds
if felony is older than 10 years old, evidence could get in IF
probative SUBSTANTIALLY outweighs prejudicial; AND
proponent gives adverse party written notice of intent to use
81
What is a testimonial statement?
A statement under circumstances which would lead an objective witness to reasonably believe the statement would be available for use at a later trial.
82
6 ways to be unavailable
1) Privilege
2) Refusal
3) Lack of Memory
4) Death/Illness
5) Absence
6) Wrongdoing
83
804(B)(1): Former Testimony
- establish that it's hearsay
- is W unavailable?
1) Testimony was given as a witness at a trial, hearing, or disposition
2) opposing party had opportunity to examine declarant
3) opposing party had same motivation to examine dec.
4) is this the same party? in criminal cases it must be the same actual party. in a civil cases, actual same party or predecessor in interest
84
804(B)(2): Dying Declarations
- Declarant must be unavailable
1) must be homicide or civil case
2) Declarant believed death was imminent (swift + inevitable) (even if they didn't die)
3) can only concern statements about cause/circumstances of death
85
804(B)(2): Dying Declarations:
They're likely dead, so how do we prove their state of mind? (104(a))
judge decides under a preponderance of the evidence
- declarant's statement
- statements to declarant by medical personnel
- nature/extent of wounds/illness
- length of time between statement and death
- opinions of treating medical personnel
86
804(B)(3): Statements Against Interest
- hearsay
- declarant unavailable
1) against interest when made?
2) satisfies one of the 3 ways to be against interest
3) objectively sufficiently against one of those 3?
4) if it exposes D to criminal liability, was it corroborated?
87
804(B)(3): Statements Against Interest: 3 ways to be against interest
so contrary to their interest that a reasonable person would not make the statement unless it was true
1) pecuniary or propietary interests
2) renders a claim they have against another party invalid
3) exposes the declarant to civil or criminal liability
88
804(B)(3): Statements Against Interest
in criminal cases requiring corroboration, what are the factors?
did Dec. already plead guilty before making the statement (or were they still exposed to prosecution)?
Dec. motive in making the statement
Was there a reason for Dec to lie?
did they repeat the statement consistently?
party to whom the statement was made
relationship of Dec. with the accused
nature and strength of independent evidence relevant to conduct in question
89
804(B)(6): Forfeiture
- hearsay
- declarant is unavailable
1) opposing party either:
- wrongfully caused; or
- acquiesced in wrongfully causing the dec's unavailability
2) party INTENDED to make the Dec. unavailable
90
804(B)(6): Forfeiture
What's wrongfully causing?
not necessarily criminal, but improper in some way
- coercion, pressure, undue influence
- some say (and some don't) communicating with witness to try and get them not to testify is improper
91
804(B)(6): Forfeiture
What's acquiescing?
a tacit agreement, bare knowledge and not warning is often sufficient
if part of a conspiracy, don't even need to have knowledge
92
804(B)(6): Forfeiture
Can intent carry forward?
Yes. Intent to prevent testimony at this trial carries to subsequent trials
93
801(d)(2) Statements of a Party-Opponent
(the other exemption)
2 steps, the second step has 5 ways to prove
1) offered against the party who made the statement
2) was made directly by the party
OR
2) adopted by the party (by silence or prepared statement)
OR
2) party authorized the declarant to speak for them on that particular matter
OR
2) statement was made by an agent or employee (was it made within the scope of their agency?did agency exist at time of statement)
OR
2) were they co-conspirators
94
2 readings of 801(D)(2): broad and narrow
broad: any litigant can introduce statements against co-∆'s and co-π's
narrow: co-∆'s/co-π's are NOT opposing parties and can't introduce statements against each other
95
801(D)(2)(A): what're spillover affects and implicating Bruton.
If Bruton applies, what are prosecutor's 3 options?
allowing a litigant to intro a statement against that party might implicate co-∆'s in a criminal case, causing Confrontation Clause issues
96
801(D)(2): attack guide (4 steps)
1) is it being offered against the party who made the statement?
2) is it a criminal case? (no, limiting instruction. Yes, check CC and Bruton)
3) will it violate the Confrontation Clause? (is it testimonial, is dec. not testifying?)
4) Does it explicitly/implicitly implicate co-∆'s? (Bruton)
- no? just limiting instruction
- yes? three options for prosecutor
97
If Bruton applies, what are prosecutor's 3 options?
1) redact appropriately
2) sever the trials
3) don't use statement at all
98
801(D)(2)(E): statements of a co-conspirator (4 steps)
1) offered against an opposing party
2) statement made by a co-conspirator?
3) made in furtherance of the conspiracy?
4) made during the conspiracy?
99
801(D)(2)(E): statements of a co-conspirator: what's a conspiracy?
just show declarant and party against whom statement is offered were members of a common venture, need not be charged with conspiracy
100
801(D)(2)(E): statements of a co-conspirator:
in furtherance of?
during conspiracy?
in furtherance of just has to try and further goals (not confessions or boasting to outsiders)
during the conspiracy...ends at arrests (unless jointly concealing)
101
807: Residual Exception (4 steps)
1) statement was not admissible under another hearsay exception
2) sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness
3) we couldn't probative evidence through other reasonable efforts
4) inform opposing party of intent to use statement
102
807: Residual Exception
7 factors regarding trustworthiness (don't really need to know, but good to think about)
OOC statement was made under oath
declarant had firsthand knowledge of facts in the statement
declarant recanted the statement
other evidence corroborates the statement
corroborating evidence is subject to cross-examination
other evidence undermines or contradicts the OOC statement
declarant had any incentive to lie when making the out-of-court statement
103
806: Impeaching Hearsay Declarants (3 steps)
1) statement was either hearsay or an assertion by opposing party/their agent/spokesperson/co-conspirator
2) if attacking their credibility, use FRE 600s methods
3) if rehabilitating, were they already attacked?
104
806: Impeaching Hearsay Declarant's
600s methods to attack
Bias/interest
Inconsistent statements
Lacks personal knowledge
Incapacity
Reputation or opinion evidence about untruthful character
Criminal convictions if allowed
Evidence of specific acts
- courts split here (some say collateral matters rule does not matter here)
105
806: Impeaching Hearsay Declarants
Rehabbing Methods
Offer evidence rebutting bias, incapacity or interest allegations
Introduce consistent statements
Call positive character witnesses
106
806: Impeaching Hearsay Declarants
Using Inconsistent Statements
Parties can present declarant’s prior inconsistent statements without giving the declarant opportunity to explain or deny
That's different than 613 – hearsay declarants may be unavailable
107
CC: What does Crawford focus on?
Procedural right of cross-examination.
Criminal ∆ has right to cross anyone who makes a testimonial statement against him
108
CC 5 steps
1) was this a hearsay statement offered against a criminal ∆?
2) is the admissible under a hearsay rule? (party-opponent statement, dying declaration, and forfeiture are PER SE good here)
3) is statement testimonial?
4) is declarant available at trial?
- if yes, all good
- if no, go to step 5
5) did ∆ have prior opportunity and similar motive to cross declarant?
109
CC 5 steps
1) was this a hearsay statement offered against a criminal ∆?
2) is the admissible under a hearsay rule? (party-opponent statement, dying declaration, and forfeiture are PER SE good here)
3) is statement testimonial?
4) is declarant available at trial?
- if yes, all good
- if no, go to step 5
5) did ∆ have prior opportunity and similar motive to cross declarant?
110
CC only limits prosecutor's evidence offered in ______ cases against ______s
only limits prosecution's introduction of evidence offered in CRIMINAL cases against DEFENDANTS
111
CC: What's testimonial?
statement resembles an W's in-court testimony
1) solemn declaration made to prove a fact
2) made under circumstances that an objective W would reasonably believe it'd be used later at trial
112
CC easy testimonial situations (2)
and easy non-testimonial situations (4)
Testimonial:
1) formal statements during litigation
2) statements responding to conventional police interrogation
Non-Testimonial:
1) Biz records
2) statements in furtherance of a conspiracy
3) ∆'s own statements
4) non-TotMA statements
113
CC
statements to law enforcement outside traditional interrogation
look at purpose of interaction
- to respond to emergency OR
- establish and proving facts for prosecution
114
CC
(lab) reports
- was objective primary purpose to be used at later prosecution? (KAGAN)
- targeted? (ALITO) testimonial
- highly formalized? (THOMAS) testimonial
115
CC
statements among private parties
6 factors
1) was there a law enforcement interrogator?
2) was there an ongoing emergency?
3) formality of situation
4) similar evidence admitted
5) age of Decl.
6) was primary purpose for litigation? (KAGAN test)
116
CC
remember that state must make a good faith effort to qualify someone as unavailable
--
117
701: Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses (3 elements)
If W is not testifying as an expert, testimony is limited to one that's:
1) rationally based on W's perception
2) helpful to clearly understanding W's testimony and determining a fact at issue
3) NOT based on sci/tech/specialized knowledge (that's 702)
118
701: Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses
What's Helpful?
W's testimony helps get the jury to a conclusion that they couldn't reach without the testimony.
Offers nuances or little details that get the jury from the facts to the conclusion.
119
701: Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses
NOT based on sci/tech/specialized knowledge (that's 702)
W can draw on life experiences and use "process of reasoning familiar in everyday life
uncommon expertise is ok...but CANNOT use a process of reasoning which is only mastered by specialized
120
702: Expert Testimony: how to qualify as an expert
Knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education
121
702: Expert Testimony: 5 elements
1) qualified as a W
2) their sci/tech/special knowledge will HELP jury
3) based on sufficient facts/data
4) product of reliable principals/methods
5) principals/methods were reliably applied to the facts
122
```
702: Expert Testimony:
Daubert Factors (5)
```
1) whether theory has been tested
2) was it subject to peer review/publication?
3) known error rate
4) existence of standards controlling technique's application
5) theory/technique has been generally accepted in the field (FRYE test)
123
702: Expert Testimony:
Fit
The opinion must be enough to help the factfinder determine a specific fact.
Can't just throw scientific facts at them if the fact isn't at issue
124
702: Expert Testimony:
2 more reliability factors
Does it follow established protocols? (i.e. study said use this for crashes from 15-60mph and he used it for 10mph)
Was this an idiosyncratic approach specifically for litigation or part of a broader program of research?
125
Doctrine of Chances is only available when _____ is at issue
identity
