FINAL REVIEW

Question 1

in a case about a violent crime, is testimony re: the D’s honesty relevant?

Answer 1

no, inadmissible

if this were a case where character was at issue, then yes

Question 2

what is the general rule re: specific acts of misconduct?

Answer 2

generally not admissible to show a criminal propensity

Question 3

when may specific acts of misconduct be admitted?

Answer 3

only if the acts of misconduct are INDEPENDENTLY relevant to some issue other than the D’s character or disposition, i.e. MIMIC evidence – motive intent mistake identity common plan or scheme

Question 4

what does taking the stand by the D place in issue?

Answer 4

the D’s CREDIBILITY ONLY, NOT character

Question 5

may a character witness be cross-examined about the D’s prior arrests?

Answer 5

yes

Question 6

may a character witness be cross-examined about their own arrests?

Answer 6

no, improper

Question 7

what may be used for “refreshing a recollection”?

Answer 7

ANY writing or thing,

Question 8

if a witness uses a writing to refresh her memory while on the stand, what is the adverse party entitled to?

Answer 8

introduce into evidence

Question 9

when may the witness read a writing into evidence on direct exmination re: past recollection?

Answer 9

for past recollection recorded

• needs proper foundation
  1. witness at one time had PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of the facts in the record;
  2. record was MADE BY WIT or ADOPTED by wit
  3. TIMELY MADE when the matter was fresh
  4. ACCURATELY REFLECTS WIT’S KNOWLEDGE
  5. wit has INSUFFICIENT RECOLLECTION

Question 10

when can the doc used in a past recollection recorded, the actual doc, be admitted into evidence?

Answer 10

can only be done so by the adverse party

Question 11

for what purposes is nonhearsay admisible for?

Answer 11

1. substantive

2. impeachment

Question 12

when is a prior statement by a witness nonhearsay?

Answer 12

• made by a testifying wit who is subject to cross-examination if:
  1. prior statement is INCONSISTENT with teh declarant’s in-court testimony and was GIVEN UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY
  2. prior statement is consistent w/ in-court testimony and is (1) offered to rebut a charge of lying or 2. offered to rehabilitate a wit whose credibility has been impeached
  3. statement is one of identification of a person as someone the wit perceived earlier