HYPOS (E&E, Casebook, Quimbee, Steinhauser) Flashcards

Question

P sues D for money she claims is due under the terms of the settlement of a prior suit. How can P establish her claim in light of R.408's prohibitions re: evidence of settlements?

Answer 1

In this case P is allowed to introduce evidence of the settlement agreement because R.408 only precludes evidence about settlements or settlement talks if the evidence is introduced as relevant to the validity or invalidity of the underlying claim that is subject of the negotiations. Here, the claim is not based on whatever dispute led to the settlement, but on a contractual undertaking (the settlement) which can be interpreted and enforced by a court without any attention to the OG dispute intended to resolve.

Answer 2

R.408 requires 1) A formal/informal compromise 2) Validity or amount in dispute 3) Considerable consideration Because the customer tried to whittle down the amount she owed, this was not a compromise under the definition of the FRE. R.408 only covers statements and conduct in connection with claims that are disputed either as to the validity or amount. Here, there is no dispute about the amount owed or the quality of the car. Objection: Quasi-privileges -- Compromise/Settlement Negotiations Response: Rule 408 does not apply here because there is no dispute (validity or amount), which the rule requires. Here, the customer's conversation should be admissible because she was trying to re-negotiate the amount she owes that had already been decided when she bought the car, which was not the intent of this rule. Ruling: Overruled

Answer 3

Yes. P (individual harmed in the accident) D (railroad) Highway department is not involved in the lawsuit as a party, so their actions can be used to show that the intersection was dangerous. R. 407 subsequent remedial measures prohibition does not apply. Objection: Quasi privileges -- subsequent remedial measures Response: R.407 does not apply because the highway department is not the defendant in this case. 407 is only for Ds who take subsequent measures. Ruling: Overruled

Answer 4

Yes. This could be used to show P2's bias in favor of D and is not barred by R.409 (offers to pay medical expenses) It cannot be used for truth of the matter asserted -- like admitting fault or liability, but it does show motivation to P2 to lie or make testimony for D more favorable. The prosecution could impeach P2 and use this evidence. A limiting jury instruction could be included, which says that the information can only be used to determine P2's credibility, not if D was ultimately at fault by paying P2's medical expenses. Objection: Quasi Privileges -- offers to pay medical expenses Response: Not using this information to show D's fault or liability, but as extrinsic evidence to show P2's bias because D paid her medical bills. Ruling: Overruled

Answer 5

No, because the testimony only involves a specific instance of conduct. Under Rule 405 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, whenever character evidence is admissible, character can be proven by testimony in the form of an opinion about a person’s character or trait. However, specific instances of conduct are not admissible to prove a person’s character to show that the person acted in a particular way based on his or her character. Consequently, the man could not use the witness’s testimony that the bouncer had once said that he wanted to kill “one of these drunk idiots” to show the bouncer’s character for violence.

Answer 6

The policy may be admitted to prove the feasibility of taking precautionary measures. Pursuant to Rule 407 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, subsequent remedial measures, or measures that would have made an earlier inquiry or harm less likely to happen, are not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, or a need for warning or instruction. Such measures may be admissible to prove ownership or control, as well as to prove the feasibility of taking precautionary measures

Answer 7

A) It does not relate to a matter of consequence in the action. The defendant’s belief that the plaintiff was someone else is not a matter of consequence in the tort of assault, and it is therefore not relevant to the plaintiff’s claim.

Answer 8

Yes, because the arrest tended to show that the woman knew how to shoot someone. Prior crimes or misconduct are only admissible for noncharacter purposes. Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence specifies that a person’s previous crimes, wrongs, or other acts are not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show action in conformance with that character. Prior crimes or misconduct may include arrests, convictions, or even testimony from witnesses who observed unreported crimes. While inadmissible for the purpose of proving character, prior crimes or misconduct may be admissible for relevant, noncharacter purposes, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation or planning, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Typically, evidence of a prior crime or misconduct may be introduced only if it can be proven and if it was committed reasonably close in time to the relevant action. Here, the woman’s prior arrest could be used to show she had the knowledge of how to shoot someone.

Answer 9

Objection: Rule 411, Liability Insurance Response: Not using to show liability, rather to prove ownership Ruling: Overruled The judge should admit the evidence to address the disputed issue of which defendant had control and responsibility for maintaining the rest stop. Rule 411 of the Federal Rules of Evidence excludes evidence of liability insurance to prove negligence or wrongful conduct, but permits it for other purposes, such as to prove ownership or control. Here, because there is a dispute about which defendant had control of, and therefore responsibility for, maintaining the rest stop, evidence of liability insurance would be probative of the defendant’s assumption of responsibility for the premises.

Answer 10

Yes, because the testimony increased the probability that the man stole the car. Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence requires that, to be relevant, evidence must make a fact more probable than it would have been without the evidence. In addition, the fact that the evidence tends to support must be material, i.e., it must be of consequence in determining the action. However, the burden does not require that any particular piece of evidence make a fact probable (i.e., make the fact likely or at least 51 percent probable). Instead, the burden only requires that each piece of evidence make some material fact slightly more probable than it would have been without the evidence. Here, the fact that the witness saw the man looking at the car a short time before the car was reported missing was admissible because it made it slightly more probable that the man stole the car.

Answer 11

The judge may admit the evidence, because it is not being offered against the defendant, but the judge will likely consider the policy of encouraging free and open plea negotiations as a factor in the determination. Federal Rule of Evidence 410 prohibits, in a civil or criminal case, the admissibility, against the defendant, of any statements made by the defendant during plea negotiations. The rule is a one-way street, however. It confers evidentiary protections upon the defendant, but not upon the prosecutor. Therefore, under the language of the federal rule, the judge in this case would have the discretion to admit the prosecution’s offer of a lesser charge. However, as a practical matter, judges often exclude these statements, even when offered by the defendant, to encourage free and open negotiations in the context of plea discussions.

Answer 12

No, because the doctor’s prior convictions are irrelevant to the lawyer’s defense. Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that evidence is relevant if it meets two criteria. First, the evidence must be probative in that it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Any tendency at all is sufficient; the standard is not stringent. Second, the evidence must also be material in that the fact it makes more or less probable is of consequence in determining the action. A wide range of issues can be considered facts of consequence, including anything from a legal element of the case itself to undisputed background information that helps the jury to understand a matter. Here, the lawyer is offering the evidence to prove he acted in reasonable belief that he would be physically attacked. However, the lawyer did not know about the three prior convictions before the shooting, so the prior convictions do not have any tendency at all to show that the lawyer was reasonable in his belief. Consequently, the prior convictions are irrelevant and should not be admitted.

Answer 13

Yes, because the liability policy may prove the company’s ownership of the truck. Often, a person or organization will be insured against potential liability. When an accident occurs, the victim may try to use the fact that the injuring party owns liability insurance in order to prove that the injuring party acted wrongfully. Rule 411 of the Federal Rules of Evidence prohibits the use of liability insurance ownership to prove that a person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. The public-policy rationale behind this rule is to encourage the ownership of liability insurance. However, evidence of liability insurance may be admissible to prove witness bias or to prove agency, ownership, or control. Here, because the company claimed that it did not own the truck, the woman can use the liability policy to show ownership.

Answer 14

To prove that the accountant did not make an innocent mistake. Under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, although crimes, wrongs, and other acts are not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that, on a particular occasion, the person acted in conformity with that character, they may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving the absence of a mistake. Therefore, a judge could properly admit the evidence to rebut the accountant’s defense that she had made innocent mistakes with regard to the charity’s records. Note that if the judge admits the evidence, the judge would likely accompany the admission with a limiting instruction to the jury advising it that it may only consider the evidence for the purpose of deciding whether the accountant’s errors were mistakes.

Answer 15

The baseball cap could lead jurors to make decisions based on a non-rational basis. Under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, “[t]he court may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Unfair prejudice refers to a situation where evidence has an undue tendency to suggest decisions on an improper basis—typically, though not necessarily, an emotional one (for example, a gory crime-scene photo or a picture of the defendant wearing a T-shirt with an offensive slogan). Here, if the court refuses to admit the photograph into evidence, it is likely because the baseball cap could lead jurors to make a decision based on the man’s political affiliation instead of a proper basis.

Answer 16

Yes, because the woman testified to the prosecutor’s statement during plea negotiations. Some types of pleas and plea-related statements are not admissible as evidence in criminal and civil cases. Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence prohibits the use of withdrawn guilty pleas and nolo contendere—or no contest—pleas, as well as any statements made during proceedings or discussions regarding those pleas. The public-policy rationale behind this rule is to encourage plea bargaining, in order to avoid litigation if possible. However, there are two exceptions to Rule 410 that allow plea-related statements to be admissible in two situations. + First, a related statement may be admissible in any proceeding where another statement made during the same plea or plea discussion has already been introduced, but only if the statements should be considered together in the interests of fairness. + The second exception applies to criminal proceedings for perjury. If the defendant made the related statement under oath and on the record, with an attorney present, then that statement may be admissible in the perjury proceeding. Here, the woman testified to the prosecutor’s statement, so the woman’s related statement could be admitted in the interest of fairness.

Answer 17

Evidence that the bettor always became violently angry whenever things did not go his way. Under Rule 406 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, for evidence to qualify as habit evidence, it must relate to behavior that is strong, specific, and consistent to the point of being almost automatic in its repetition. It must have occurred regularly enough to demonstrate that a person would have responded in a particular way to a particular situation. The more general the behavior, the more likely it is to be character rather than habit evidence. Here, evidence that the bettor always became angry whenever things did not go his way is more likely to be classified as character evidence. Importantly, this answer option does not state any particular behavior in a particular situation that is consistently repeated

Answer 18

The foreign government’s approval and the promissory note. Some evidence is self-authenticating and does not need to be further authenticated by the proffering party to be admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 902. Generally, this category of evidence consists of documents that are not particularly susceptible to fraud or forgery. Foreign government documents and commercial paper documents such as a promissory note are self-authenticating. However, United States government documents must be either sealed or signed and certified to be self-authenticating. Because the United States banking approval was only signed, and not sealed or certified, the approval is not self-authenticating.

Answer 19

Yes, because the prosecutor could use traditional authentication principles to authenticate the conversation.

Answer 20

No, because the prejudicial effect of the prior convictions is likely very high. The introduction of a prior conviction may be used only to attack the witness’s character for truthfulness. Fed. R. Evid. 609. There is a higher standard of admissibility for a prior felony conviction of a criminal-defendant witness than there is for a witness who is not a criminal defendant, because evidence of prior convictions is viewed as extremely prejudicial to criminal defendants. An otherwise admissible prior felony conviction of a criminal-defendant witness is admissible only if the probative value of admitting the prior felony conviction outweighs its prejudicial effect. Consequently, prior convictions are generally inadmissible in cases where the current offense is the same or similar to the prior conviction. This is because the probative value of the prior convictions is generally outweighed by the high chance for prejudicial effect. A jury hearing that a defendant was previously convicted for the same crime the defendant is currently charged with would be more likely to draw an impermissible inference that the defendant must have committed the present crime because the defendant had done it before.

Answer 21

No, because the investigator did not have sufficient familiarity with the man or the community. Reputation evidence refers to evidence indicating that the witness has a bad reputation for truthfulness in the witness’s community. To give reputation testimony about another witness, a person serving as a character witness must be sufficiently familiar with the witness’s reputation in the witness’s community to give competent testimony on the topic. Fed. R. Evid. 608(a)

Answer 22

No, because the tape increases the probability that the woman was the shoplifter. Under Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, evidence is relevant if (1) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, and (2) the fact is of consequence in determining the appropriate outcome of the action. Here, the fact that the tape shows that a white woman was the shoplifter makes it more likely that the woman was the shoplifter because she is a white woman herself.

Answer 23

No, because it was not a statement made during and in furtherance of a conspiracy. The court should deny the motion and refuse to admit the map. Rule 801(d)(2)(E) of the Federal Rules of Evidence exempts from the definition of hearsay statements offered against an opposing party that were made by the party’s co-conspirator during, and in furtherance of, the conspiracy. Here, the conspiracy between the murderer and the assisting defendant involved solely the witness's murder and burial. The assisting defendant’s unilateral solicitation of another person to claim responsibility for the burial was unrelated to the original conspiracy and occurred after that conspiracy had ended. Therefore, the statement was not made during or in furtherance of the conspiracy between the assisting defendant and the murderer. Accordingly, the map is not admissible against the murderer as a co-conspirator's statement.

Answer 24

Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) carves out an exception to the hearsay rule for statements made by unavailable declarants that are against the declarant’s pecuniary or penal interest. Whether a statement is against the declarant’s interest is judged by an objective standard at the time the statement was made. At issue is whether a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would have made the statement only if the declarant believed it to be true because the statement was so contrary to the declarant’s interest. A smoking gun or full confession is not required in order for a statement to be against interest. Rather, qualifying statements are those that are useful to investigators or prosecutors in proving that the declarant committed a crime, or are somehow damaging to the declarant’s financial interests, including as proof in civil litigation. Here, the gardener is the declarant and is unavailable because he is deceased. At the time that the gardener was testifying by deposition, the neighbor had repeatedly threatened to sue the gardener for the amounts the gardener owed her. The gardener’s admission under oath that he owed the neighbor $50,000 was therefore strongly contrary to the gardener’s pecuniary interest. The statement provided the neighbor with proof in any civil case she would bring to recover what the gardener owed. For this reason, the court should admit the transcript over the prosecution’s hearsay objection because the exception for statements against interest applies.

Answer 25

No, because the boyfriend’s prior statement to the bartender was not made under the penalty of perjury. A declarant-witness’s prior inconsistent statement is exempted from the rule against hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A) if the statement is (1) inconsistent with the declarant-witness’s testimony in the present trial, and (2) the prior statement was given under the penalty of perjury. Typically, to meet the second requirement, the statement must have been made during a previous trial, hearing, or other proceeding requiring an oath or affirmation to testify truthfully. Here, because the boyfriend’s statement was made only to a bartender, the statement was not given under the penalty of perjury and would not be admitted as a prior inconsistent statement.

Answer 26

Yes, because the report is admissible under the public records exception. Rule 803(8) creates an exception in civil cases for records or statements of public officers that are factual findings from a legally authorized investigation. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(8)(A)(iii). Here, the report satisfies Rule 803(8)’s requirements, as the EPA investigator was working on an EPA investigation of an oil spill and reported her factual findings from the investigation in an EPA report.

Answer 27

The defendant’s statement identifying himself as a federal agent is not hearsay, because it is not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter the statement asserts. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). An out-of-court statement offered not for its truth, but to show that the declarant made the statement, is not hearsay. Sometimes the fact that a declarant said something has legal significance that is independent from whether the statement is true. Out-of-court statements having legal significance independent of their truth are called verbal acts. Verbal acts are not hearsay, because their proponent is not using the statements to prove the truth of what the declarant said; rather, their proponent is offering them to prove that the declarant spoke the statement at all. Uttering the words themselves (regardless of whether the words were true) has legal significance. Here, the government seeks to introduce an out-of-court statement from the defendant. In the statement, the defendant identified himself as a federal agent. The truth of the matter that the out-of-court statement asserts is that the defendant is a federal agent. The government is not using the statement to prove that the defendant is a federal agent. Rather, the government is using the statement to prove that the defendant said it at all. The fact that the defendant uttered the statement has legal significance, independent of whether the statement is actually true. The fact that the defendant said “I’m a federal agent,” proves an element of the government’s case: namely, that the defendant was pretending to be an employee of the United States government. Therefore, the most likely rationale for the judge is that the witness's testimony is admissible because the defendant's out-of-court statement is not hearsay, because it is not being offered to prove the truth of the matter it asserts.

Answer 28

Writing letters such as this one is not a regular practice of the activity of hiring professors. Rule 803(6) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, commonly called the “business records exception,” permits certain records of regularly conducted business activity to be admitted as an exception to the rule against hearsay. The exception requires that the record satisfy five conditions in order to be admitted. The record must have been made at or near the time of the act, event, condition, or diagnosis it addresses. The record must be one kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of the business. The making of the record must be a regular practice of the activity. Neither the source of the information nor the method of preparation may indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

Answer 29

Yes, because the defense implied that the friend is lying to take over the defendant’s drug business. Under the hearsay exemption in Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1), a prior consistent statement will be admitted if (1) the prior statement is consistent with the declarant-witness’s testimony in the present trial, and (2) the prior statement is offered in the present trial to rebut an express or implied charge of recent fabrication, or recent improper influence or motive regarding the declarant. Here, the friend’s prior statement is consistent with his trial testimony, and it is being offered in response to the implication that the friend is lying to take over the defendant’s drug business.

Answer 30

Yes, because the banker’s statement is not testimonial. The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause guarantees a criminal defendant the right to be confronted with witnesses testifying against him. Admitting a hearsay statement that qualifies under an exception to a hearsay rule against a criminal defendant violates the defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause if the hearsay statement is testimonial. A statement is testimonial if the declarant would reasonably believe that the statement could be used as evidence in a later trial. However, a statement made during an emergency for the primary purpose of aiding the police in responding to the emergency is not testimonial. Here, the at the time the banker made the statement to the police about the activist, the activist was at large. Evidence indicated that the activist was planning to execute other attacks on banks. The banker’s statement was made to help police identify and locate the activist during an ongoing emergency. As such, the statement is likely not testimonial, because its primary purpose was to help police respond to the emergency. Because the statement is not testimonial, admitting it under an exception to the hearsay rule does not violate the activist’s rights under the Confrontation Clause, even though the activist will not have the ability to cross-examine the now-deceased banker.

Answer 31

B) Inadmissible under the quasi-privilege established by R.407 A is wrong because a report is a "subsequent repair" that 407 bars if the report is offered to prove that the warning label had been defective. C is wrong because the consulting firm would be D's employee for opposing party statement purposes.

Answer 32

D) Admissible to prove that S was incompetent when hired The doctor's competence is itself a material fact

Answer 33

E) S's statement is not admissible against D under any of the circumstances described above. A is incorrect b/c former testimony is not admissible against criminal defendants unless they were parties in the case in which testimony was offered B is incorrect b/c it refers to 104(b) standard of admissibility C is incorrect because since S has been arrested the statement is not in furtherance of the conspiracy D is incorrect because S's statement would be hearsay

Answer 34

C is correct: J's deposition testimony is admissible if P establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that J is unavailable and P can establish this by testifying, "the day after J settled her case, I got a phone call from a caller I know was J and J said that she'd already moved to another state and was never going to return." Foundational testimony authenticates the speaker as J and J's statement indicates that J is beyond the court's subpoena power and is therefore unavailable. A is incorrect because there's no authentication of J as the sender of the email message B is incorrect because the efforts to locate J are tardy and inadequate E is incorrect b/c P was not a party to the original case and there's no showing of similarity between J and P's cases

Answer 35

Objection: Improper character evidence (act propensity) Response: This could lead the jury to think that defendant is typically interested in sexual relations with women much younger than himself and this could support an inference that on a particular occasion, defendant acted in conformity with that interest. Ruling: Sustained. If the past sexual conduct had been criminal, R.413 would authorize its admission. This is the prosecution's case, so defendant has not opened the door as to his character/reputation, which is limited to truthfulness and peacefulness under R.404(a)/R.405(a).

Answer 36

Objection: Improper character evidence Response: Under R. 404(b), stealing a car could be treated as evidence showing a *plan* to rob a bank, rather than evidence that only has relevance to support an inference of the actor's bad character. The use of stolen cars in robberies is common enough so that car theft can be linked to a later bank robbery as an element of a common plan. Also, a witness who saw D steal the car and can identify the defendant in connection with the car... this would be relevant as identification evidence, showing D's connection, then to the earlier car theft would be for the purpose of providing circumstantial evidence as the person who robbed the bank. Ruling: Depends on judge, but overruled likely.

Answer 37

1) Yes. The point of using testimony about either reputation or past acts of P would proper to support a jury inference about his character. Since P's character itself is an issue under the substantive law of defamation, the act propensity prohibition has no impact on the case. Objection: Improper character evidence Response: P has put his character at issue. Under 405(b), act propensity has no impact on this case. Upon hearing opinion or specific instances of P to show that he is, in fact, a cheapskate or has treated animals cruelly, the jury may not conclude that just because he has a reputation or has acted in the past in conformity with the pertinent trait that he acted in conformity on a particular occasion. There's a possibility that the jurors might reach such conclusions does not eliminate the legitimate possible use of the material that is justified by the relevance of character in defamation. Ruling: Overruled.

Answer 38

Objection: Improper Character Evidence Response: Offered to prove character under 405(b), as lying is an essential element of a charge/claim/defense. Ruling: Sustained. "Deceitful character" is not an element of embezzlement. To put D in jail for this crime, prosecution does not have to show that D is generally a liar or a thief. Rule 404(a) prohibits use of this evidence. All the prosecution must do is show beyond a reasonable doubt (for a criminal case) that D took money that did not belong to her. People of honest character may sometimes be embezzlers and so may people of criminal dispositions. No substantive criminal law establishes as an element of the crime of embezzlement that "bad character" is required to be shown in support of conviction.

Answer 39

Objection: Improper character evidence Response: Under R.405(b)(2), showing D's intent on the occasion of the shooting incident. Past poisoning makes it likely that he was involved in the shooting -- the defendant is a murdering kind of person. Response: Sustained. The evidence would likely persuade the jury to believe that a person who tries to poison someone has an evil or murderous character and that having such character makes it likely that on another occasion, he acted in conformity with it. That is prohibited propensity under R.404(b)(1). The poisoning is not relevant for identification unless it shows a similarity between the past act and the crime at issue (i.e., modus operandi).

Answer 40

1) This is character evidence to support an inference that the owner is generous. Objection: Improper character evidence. Response: The testimony supports D's case that that she wants the fact finder to infer that the owner's generosity that he acted generously on this specific occasion. Ruling: Sustained. This violates R.401(a)(1) -- act propensity. 2) Objection: Improper character evidence Response: Under R.406, the owner is demonstrating a habit of giving magazines to VIP customers. Ruling: This violates act propensity. The gifts involved free will, not frequent, not a uniform response to all instances of a particular stimulus.

Answer 41

1) Objection: Improper character evidence Response: Under 406, D has established a habit that she's "always careful" Ruling: Sustained. "Always careful" describes a character trait of being responsible and non-negligent. This evidence should be excluded to show that on a particular occasion, the doctor acted in conformity with that character trait. 2) Objection: Improper character evidence Response: This establishes habit under R.406 because the doctor describes specific acts/routine when she hands patients prescriptions: routine, repeated often, and does not involve reflection. Ruling: Overruled.

Answer 42

For all three witnesses, the testimony is relevant to D's character (and nothing else). Can this be used by D? Yes, in a criminal trial under 404(a)(2) exception to ban on character propensity, IF the character trait is pertinent. And, in what form is the testimony? W1: Form is reputation. Law-abiding is relevant. Allowed W2: Form is opinion. Honest is relevant. Allowed W3: Form of presentation is wrong -- attempts to support inferences about character on the basis of information about specific conduct by D in the past. Under 405(b), this is not allowed unless the specific character itself is an ultimate issue of the case.

Answer 43

Objection: Improper character evidence Response: Reputation under R.4045(a) Ruling: Sustained. This testimony is inadmissible under R.404(a)(2)(A) -- its only relevance depends on the forbidden propensity inference. Prosecutors may not introduce evidence of an inference (here, reputation) until defendant has "opened the door" by using it himself.

Answer 44

1) Three objections: hearsay, compromise offers, offer to pay medical expenses + Hearsay: 801(d)(2)(A) -- opponent statement. Anything not barred from admission below with other objections comes in. + Compromise offers: 408 -- "My insurance will pay you... if you agree not to sue me" + Medical expenses: 409 -- "I'll pay your medical expenses" Likely that at least part of D's statement is coming in under 801(d)(2)(A), unless D's counsel can get the entire statement out of evidence. 2) Under R.408-409, P cannot impeach a witness for prior inconstent statemnets with testimony that is not coming in otherwise. BUT P could impeach for prior inconsistent statements from anything "leftover" that was admitted from D's statements under 801(d)(2)(A).

Answer 45

1) Objection: hearsay Response: Not using for truth of the matter asserted, but for the non-hearsay purpose for effect on the listener, which is relevant because... Ruling: Sustained, lack of relevance 2) Objection: 407, subsequent remedial measures Response: IF the accident occurred before the 1989 modification, the remedial measure was not after the accident -- this is admissible. If the accident happened after 1989, remedial measure was after the accident. Ruling: Depends on the response/facts.

Answer 46

Objection: Improper character evidence Response: Under R.404(a)(2)(A) the defendant "opened the door" by introducing character evidence. Thus, the prosecution is entitled to respond with its own character evidence. Ruling: Sustained under R.403 -- though it's generally assumed that the evidence, if not in violation of a FRE, will come in if there's probative value, the unfair prejudice is too high here. In identifying herself as the witnesses's parole officer, the prosecution is putting D on blast that he is a criminal who's been convicted of a crime. If there was a neutral way to identify the witness and her relationship with D, it may be allowed.

Answer 47

1) Objection: Improper character evidence Response: Under R.405(a), when cross-examining a character witness, prosecution may inquire into specific instances that would be relevant to the jury's assessment of the character testimony. Ruling: Unless the evidence of a prior conviction outweighs the prejudice (vs. probative value) this is overruled. In cross-examination of a character witness, questions that "inquire into" past conduct of the person who was subject. 2) Objection: Improper character evidence. Response: The prosecution can "inquire into " past convictions in cross-examination of D's character witness. Even if the witness doesn't know or hasn't heard about the past convictions. Ruling: Depends -- if prosecution seeks to bring in extrinsic evidence, the objection would be sustained. If the prosecution merely inquires, the objection can be overruled.

Answer 48

Objection: Improper character evidence Response: Under R.405(a), this is offered to prove character by a witness whose reputation is that of a violent temperament. Ruling: Overruled. If the jury believes that the victim had a violent temperament, it may infer that the fact that the victim was the initial aggressor in the incident. Also, if the jury believes that D was aware of the victim's reputation at the time of the incident, it can use that fact in evaluating the force the defendant used against the victim. The reasonableness of self-defense depends on the degree of threat perceived by the self-defender.

Answer 49

Objection: Improper character evidence Response: There are exceptions when character evidence can prove conduct in conformity with that character trait. Ruling: This is a civil case, where R. 404(a)(2)(A) doesn't apply. The exceptions are only for criminal cases.

Answer 50

Objection: Improper extrinsic evidence/improper character evidence Response: Under 404(b)(2) could provide an avenue for admission, showing that D1 knows how to shoot a gun. This makes it more unlikely that D1 committed the charged offense. Ruling: Sustained. Character evidence for propensity is improper and, under 403, the risk to prejudice substantially outweighs probative value.

Answer 51

Objection: Hearsay Response: This is being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, under the 803(1) exception of present sense impression. Laying the foundation, we have the requisite elements of 1) personal knowledge; 2) immediately during/after event; 3) describes the event. Ruling: Overruled. If the statement is false, it will be discovered and corrected. Here, the foundation is properly laid and the statement comes in.

Answer 52

Objection: Hearsay Response: This is an out of court statement, for the truth of the matter asserted. However, this falls under the R.803(2) exception of excited utterance. The foundational elements are met: 1) Personal knowledge; 2) said in response to the startling content of the event; 3) stress of the excitement. Ruling: Overruled. This is an excited utterance. The exception covers hearsay and can be admitted for truth of the matter asserted. The utterance was made out of the stress of the occurrence.

Answer 53

1) Objection: hearsay Response: This is not hearsay, as the contract is not an out of court statement, it's a legal document. Ruling: overruled 2) Objection: hearsay Response: This is an out of court statement used for the truth of the matter asserted. The survey reflects customer's feelings as they were being asked about the shopping center's safety -- then existing state of mind. Ruling: Overruled. The survey responses describe each declarant's then-existing mental condition or state of mind.

Answer 54

Objection: Improper impeachment Response: Under R.609(a)(1)(B), the witness is the defendant in a criminal trial. Past felony convictions are permitted. Ruling: Sustained. This past crime does not involve truth telling -- relevance issue. Pending a reverse 403, we assume the evidence is NOT coming in unless the probative value substantially outweighs the prejudice to defendant. Here, the crime is very similar, which weighs even further against admitting the evidence. The crime was also almost a decade ago.

Answer 55

1) Objection: improper impeachment Response: Under 608(b)(1) (specific instances of conduct) -- witness whose character issue We are bringing in the evidence not as a prior conviction, but to show an act of untruthfulness. A security guard stealing from his employer shows that P has committed an untruthful act. This is used on D's cross of P to impeach character. Ruling: Overruled. This is relevant to P's truthfulness. But if P denied the past conduct, extrinsic evidence would not be allowed. 2) Objection: Improper impeachment Response: R.608(b)(2) we have another witness speaking to the character of truthfulness of another witness. Ruling: Sustained. Under R.608(b) no extrinsic evidence is allowed. Here, D cannot introduce testimony by P's former employer to show that he had committed the crime. If D wanted to introduce another witness to speak to P's character of truthfulness, that would be a different issue.

Answer 56

Objection: Improper impeachment Response: R.608(b)(2) allows the cross-examiner to inquire to one witness about the truthfulness about another witness. Ruling: Overruled. As long as the cross-examiner believes in a good faith effort that the conduct occurred and does not bring in extrinsic evidence, this is allowed because the past conduct being inquired into relates to truthfulness.

Answer 57

Objection: Improper character evidence Response: Under 404(a)(2)(b), the prosecution can rebut any evidence Ruling: Sustained. This is not being offered to rehabilitate or in response to D opening the door. Such evidence is hearsay and not in the proper form of opinion or reputation.

Answer 58

D) The copy was handwritten. Federal Rule of Evidence 1003 provides that a duplicate may be used to prove the content of the original, unless a genuine question is raised about the original’s authenticity, or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate. Federal Rule of Evidence 1001 defines a duplicate as any counterpart produced by a mechanical, photographic, chemical, electronic, or other equivalent process or technique that accurately reproduces the original. Here, if the court does not accept the copy, the most likely reason for it to do so is that the copy was handwritten and consequently did not meet the definition of a duplicate.

Answer 59

A) Yes, because the man is now on criminal trial related to his pouring of pollutants into the stream. Conduct or statements made during compromise negotiations in a civil dispute involving a government regulatory, investigative, or enforcement agency are admissible in a subsequent related criminal case. Fed. R. Evid. 408. Here, because the statements were made during compromise negotiations with the EPA regarding the civil enforcement action, the statements are now admissible in the man’s subsequent criminal trial for the same actions.

Answer 60

C) Yes, because the witness’s previous testimony was subject to cross-examination, and the witness is unavailable. Rule 804(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Evidence creates an exception to the hearsay rule for former testimony. The rule permits the admission of former testimony that was given by a witness at a trial or other lawful proceeding, and that is being offered against a party who had an opportunity and motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination. The exception applies whether the party who had the opportunity and motive to develop the witness’s testimony did so or not.

Answer 61

C) The attachment transcribed by one of the executives. The best-evidence rule, set forth in Rule 1002 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, requires that the proponent of a writing, recording, or photograph that is offered to prove its content must, subject to limited exceptions, offer the original of the item. See Fed. R. Evid. 1002. An “original,” for purposes of the rule, is a writing or recording itself or any counterpart “intended to have the same effect by the person who executed or issued it.” Fed. R. Evid. 1001(d). Moreover, for electronically stored data, a printout of the data is deemed an original. Id. However, a handwritten transcription is not an original under the best evidence rule. Therefore, the attachment transcribed by one of the executives would be excluded under the best evidence rule.

Answer 62

A) The health risks of smoking are not subject to reasonable dispute. Judicial notice is a court’s recognition of a commonly known and certain fact not subject to reasonable dispute, without the need for a party to prove the fact. Fed. R. Evid. 201. Here, the court could take judicial notice of the health risks of smoking if the issue was not subject to reasonable dispute.

Answer 63

C) No, because the inscriptions on the key and safe are only three hash marks. For the purposes of the best evidence rule, a writing is defined as letters, words, numbers, or their equivalent that are set forth in any form. Courts have held that the best evidence rule is inapplicable to short inscriptions on chattels (e.g., the markings on the key and the safe). Here, the inscriptions are only three hash marks, and there is no issue regarding their precise content. Consequently, the best evidence rule would not apply, and the prosecutor does not need to produce the key and safe at trial.

Answer 64

B) The prosecutor was asking irrelevant questions. A witness’s truthfulness is always relevant to his or her testimony. Therefore, a relevance objection would likely be overruled. Answer option A is incorrect because it is generally not permissible to lead one’s own witness. Here, the prosecutor’s question, “Even when you were using painkillers, were you a truthful person?” is a leading question because it suggests its own answer, i.e., the witness only has to answer “yes” without stating any substantive information. Therefore, an objection based on the prosecutor asking leading questions would likely be sustained. Answer option C is incorrect because bolstering a witness’s credibility before it has been put at issue is not permitted. Here, the prosecutor called the witness on direct examination and is seeking testimony that the witness is truthful, which would tend to bolster the witness’s credibility. Therefore, an objection based on the prosecutor bolstering the witness’s credibility would likely be sustained. Answer option D is incorrect because a court has discretion to curtail repetitive questions in the interest of judicial efficiency. Therefore, an objection based not the fact that the prosecutor was asking questions that had been previously asked and answered would likely be sustained.

Answer 65

B) Yes, because the copy was produced by a copy machine. Unless there is a genuine dispute over the authenticity of an original document, or it would be unfair to admit a duplicate, an exact copy of the document is admissible just as the original would be. For purposes of the best evidence rule, a duplicate includes any counterpart to the original made by mechanical, photographic, chemical, electronic, or equivalent process that accurately reproduces the original. Handwritten copies are not duplicates. Fed. R. Evid. 1003. Here, because there is no argument over authenticity, and no indication that it would be unfair to admit the duplicate, the copy may be introduced because it was produced by a copy machine (as opposed to being handwritten).

Answer 66

A) Yes, because the owner’s nod was an implied admission that he knew about the illegal dumping. Rule 801(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence exempts from hearsay statements made by others, offered against an opposing party, where the opposing party manifested an adoption of the statement or a belief that the statement was true. Here, the owner’s nodding in response to his employee’s statement is a manifestation that the owner adopted the statement or believed it to be true. Therefore, the statement is exempted from the hearsay rule and may be admitted.

Answer 67

B) Yes, because the reenactment was substantially similar to the actual scene. Expert testimony can be based upon experiments. The experiments can be conducted outside or inside the courtroom. Experimental evidence is admissible if the experiment occurred under substantially similar circumstances as those involved in the case. Perfect identity between the experimental conditions and actual conditions is not required. Here, because the differences between the reenactment and the crime scene were minor, the dealer can show the video to the jury. Any differences would go to the credibility of the video, which is an issue for the jury.

Answer 68

A) “There should have been a yield sign at that intersection.” Rule 701 of the Federal Rules of Evidence limits lay witness opinion testimony to an opinion that is (1) “rationally based on the witness’s perception”; (2) “helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue”; and (3) “not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.” Here, the statement that “there should have been a yield sign at that intersection,” is not a statement that falls within Rule 701’s requirements, because it is not helpful to understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue.

Answer 69

A) Yes, because the evidence of prior bad acts is admissible for impeachment purposes. Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides that evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to show that on a particular instance, the defendant committed the same sort of crime, wrong or other act. However, an exception to the rule states that evidence of a witness’s prior bad acts is admissible for the limited purpose of impeaching the witness through contradiction. Here, because the man said he had never seen drugs, the prosecution could impeach him with the contradictory evidence that he had tested positive for cocaine multiple times.

Answer 70

A) Yes, because it is unfair to admit the incomplete duplicate. If a duplicate is incomplete or illegible, a court may find that it is unfair to admit the duplicate and will require the proponent to produce the original. Fed. R. Evid. 1003. Here, because the duplicate only shows one-half of the injury that is the center of this case, it is likely unfair to admit the duplicate.

Answer 71

D) No, because the judge may not make determinations of a witness’s credibility. During a trial, the judge decides the admissibility of evidence, while the jury decides the evidence’s weight and the credibility of witnesses. See Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a). Here, the jury is the appropriate determiner of the witness’s credibility, not the judge.

Answer 72

In impeaching a witness during cross-examination, the questioning party is entitled to inquire about specific instances of conduct that are probative of the witness’s character for truthfulness. However, the party may not prove these specific instances with extrinsic evidence. Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b). This ban on the use of extrinsic evidence is unchanged by the rule that a hearsay declarant may also be impeached. Federal Rule of Evidence 806 provides that the impeachment of the hearsay declarant is limited to evidence that would be admissible if the declarant had testified as a witness. As a result, the impeachment of a declarant, even if he or she is unavailable, may not include extrinsic evidence of acts of untruthfulness. Here, the court could not take notice of the decisions to remove the vice president from the bench and disbar him because the decisions are extrinsic evidence.

Answer 73

D) Admissible to prove that D assaulted P regardless of whether D testifies in the civil trial The guilty plea is an opposing party statement under 801(d)(2)(A) -- admissible to establish the element of P's claim.

Answer 74

A) Inadmissible character evidence B = not correct because the customer's statement is not testimonial C and D = not correct because the statement doesn't relate to the event that the witness observed and even if the statement otherwise qualifies under hearsay exception 803, the statement reveals a prior robbery and is barred by character evidence rules E = two events don't establish a "plan"

Answer 75

C) J's testimony is admissible if P establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that J is unavailable, plus if P can establish this by testifying that "The day after I settled her case, I got a phone call from a caller I know was J and said that she'd already moved to another state and was never going to return." R.804(a) -- the foundational testimony authenticates the speaker as J and J's statement indicates that J is beyond the court's subpoena power and, therefore, unavailable.

Answer 76

D) None of the above are correct All of the statements involve uses of a statement that are improper under quasi-privileges for statements made in the course of plea bargaining and/or in an effort to compromise. These privileges extend protection for statements made int he course of civil and criminal proceedings.

Answer 77

C) Experts can testify as to matters about which they lack personal knowledge

Answer 78

E) none of these is coming into evidence A = violation of R.408 B and C = improper character evidence D = hearsay

Answer 79

A) Inadmissible hearsay ``` B = state of mind is not admissible to prove the fact remembered C = P's statement about prior quarrels and P's fear of D is not reasonably related to an emergency room doctor's medical treatment or diagnosis D = the statement is not a present state-of-mind statement E = no general rule makes statements of parties admissible ```

Answer 80

D) After D denies making the statement, P can offer D's statement for the truth by calling D's next door neighbor, W. W will testify that "A week after the accident, D said to me, "I never should have told P the accident was my fault." B = there's no foundation showing P routinely records this type of information in the daily ice cream sales reports

Answer 81

C) Proper impeachment, but if W answers "No" then D must take the answer ``` A = inconsistent statement relates to a collateral matter, name of the store B = prior inconsistent statement is admissible to impeach D = impeachment doesn't constitute an attack on W's character for honesty ```

Answer 82

E) Even if D does not offer the expert testimony, the prosecution can offer evidence of the earlier gold mine scheme as non-character evidence to prove that D intended to commit fraud The complexity of the scheme suggests that the earlier one is admissible under 404(b) to prove D had the capacity/opportunity to mastermind such a fraud.

Answer 83

D) The expert cannot give an opinion concerning the accuracy of W's identification because the expert witness's expertise extends only to factors that in experimental studies have been shown to be associated with mistaken identifications. A and C = eyewitness expertise does not extend to the accuracy of individual identifications B = Otherwise admissible opinions can extend to "ultimate issues" except as specifically barred by statute.

Answer 84

B) If D intentionally rendered V unavailable as a witness by threatening to harm V, a transcript of V's 911 call is admissible even if they were made too long after the attack to constitute a present sense impression. A = the facts constitute forfeiture by wrongdoing and that itself makes the hearsay statement admissible regardless of whether it independently satisfies an exception C and D = no acts constituting forfeiture took place E = no such rule exists

Answer 85

C) If D pled guilty in Traffic Court, P can call the Traffic Court clerk as a witness to testify to the plea to prove that D entered the intersection against the red light. D's guilty plea is an opposing party statement, admissible hearsay for the truth of the matter asserted under 801(d)(2)(A) A and B = conviction for an infraction (not a felony) is inadmissible hearsay D = ticket is inadmissible hearsay and an improper opinion

Answer 86

C) The evidence is irrelevant Evidence of drug use without more particularizing evidence has no tendency in reason to prove that D had a motive to rob the bank or to attack D's credibility as a witness

Answer 87

B) D-1's testimony about the incident following the burglary arrest is inadmissible hearsay The prior incident is relevant to P's motive to make a false claim against D-1. ``` A = the prior incident is not offered to attack P's character C = P's statement is an opposing party statement D = incorrect statement of the law -- claim does not make P's character an ultimate fact ``` A.

Answer 88

D) The testimony is admissible because the caller's statement to A is non-hearsay and A's statement to P is admissible as a present sense impression. The call can be used for the non-hearsay purpose of declarant's state of mind. A's account is admissible hearsay under R.803(1) present sense. ``` A = the caller does not impliedly assert that the location is used for drug sales B = A spoke to P immediately after hearing the caller's statement C = Statement does not pertain to character ```

Answer 89

D) D cannot attack W's sexual character Rape shield law extends to complainants as well as pattern witnesses. ``` A = evidence of D's other sexual assaults may be admissible but not D's reputation for sexual violence B = A conviction of a misdemeanor not involving a false statement is inadmissible to attack credibility C = sexual promiscuity is irrelevant ```

Answer 90

A) Inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove that D killed V ``` B = V's fear is irrelevant because it does not relate to any conduct of D C = the statement proves motive only if used for the truth D = W's fear of D is irrelevant E = V's belief is not admissible to prove D's conduct ```

Answer 91

C) The prosecution can call W to testify to an opinion that D is honest After D testifies, the prosecution can attack D's character for honesty. A and B = wrong for specific acts D = prosecution cannot attack D's character to prove conduct until D offers evidence of good character E = Specific act offered to support character for conduct

Answer 92

B) Barred by rape shield law A and C = W's testimony refers to V's sexual behavior with people other than D D = behavior does not relate to honesty

Answer 93

D) Inadmissible hearsay V's belief cannot support an inference as to D's conduct A and B = the statement doesn't refer to a plan to meet up with D C = improper effort to use state of mind to prove the fact remembered E = V's fear of D is irrelevant since the defense is an alibi and no conduct of V is at issue

Answer 94

B) The embezzlement started after an angry investor who lost money in D's phony Ponzi scheme threatened to report the scheme to the cops unless D paid back the investor This is non-character evidence of motive to embezzle under 404(b). A and D = D has not testified and cannot be impeached C = improper character evidence

Answer 95

E) P's statement is inadmissible hearsay A = an accusation of fault is not a fact of consequence B = drivers have no duty to contradict accusations of fault following an accident C and D = the statement is a conclusory accusation rather than a factual description of the event

Answer 96

C) Inadmissible hearsay A = A's arrest terminates A's role as a co-conspirator B and D = the statement shifts major responsibility to D and is more self-serving than against interest E = statement is not testimonial

Answer 97

C) Admissible as non-character evidence during P's case-in-chief 404(b) ``` B = specific acts of violence are not admissible to impeach character E = two prior acts does not constitute a habit ```

Answer 98

D) P can ask W, "Isn't it true that you made false statements in an application for unemployment benefits?" Subject to judicial discretion, R.608(b) allows questions about specific acts of dishonesty to attack a witness's credibility. ``` A = Mercy rule testimony can't refer to specific acts B = the question refers to the wrong character trait C = refers to an arrest (not a conviction) D = the alibi defense renders V's reputation for violence irrelevant ```

Answer 99

B) Yes, because he saw the scientist pour the chemical in the pot. To be a witness, a person must have personal knowledge of the matter. Fed. Rule of Evid. 602. This rule requires nonexpert witnesses to provide sufficient evidence proving they have personal knowledge regarding the matter they are testifying about. In this context, personal knowledge is defined as an actual observation of a fact perceived by the senses. Typically, the witness’s own testimony explaining how he or she has personal knowledge of the matter is considered sufficient to satisfy the Rule 602 requirement. Here, the janitor could testify to the cause of the explosion because he personally saw the scientist pour the chemical into the pot before the explosion.

Answer 100

C) No, because the evidence goes to the woman’s potential bias. A court may admit past sexual conduct of a victim in criminal or civil cases under limited exceptions. Importantly, any type of evidence of the victim’s past sexual conduct or predisposition may be admitted if its exclusion would violate the defendant’s constitutional rights. Here, the evidence of the affair would clearly go to the woman’s bias and potential reason to lie, and excluding that evidence would violate the man’s rights to impeach the witness under the Confrontation Clause.

Answer 101

B) Yes, because the engineer based her opinion on lay opinions. Rule 703 of the Federal Rules of Evidence sets forth the bases for an expert witness’s opinion testimony. An expert witness may rely on both (1) facts and data of which the expert witness is aware, and (2) facts and data that the expert witness personally observed. The underlying facts and data need not be admissible themselves in order for the expert witness’s opinion to be admissible. However, an expert opinion must be based on the kinds of facts or data on which other experts in the field would rely. A lay opinion is neither facts nor data that could form the basis for an admissible expert opinion; therefore, the court will likely sustain the objection.

Answer 102

A) The woman’s statements are admissible as excited utterances. Although the woman’s statements occurred 45 minutes after the shooting, she had suffered a series of traumatic events. She had witnessed a murder, had been shot and injured, had fled from her assailant, and had been transported to a hospital for emergency medical care. While the woman made her statements, she was crying uncontrollably. These are precisely the types of situations to which the excited utterance exception to the rule against hearsay applies. Rule 803(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits the admission of statements that (1) relate to a startling event or condition and (2) are made while the declarant is still under the stress of the excitement caused by the startling event or condition. Significantly, the rule does not specify any temporal limit on the exception’s application. Therefore, in light of the woman’s particular circumstances, which reflect that she was still under the stress of the excitement caused by the series of events, her statements could be admitted under this exception to the rule against hearsay.

Answer 103

A) Only the photograph. The best evidence rule requires that the proponent of a writing, recording, or photograph that is offered to prove its contents must, subject to limited exceptions, offer the original. Fed. R. Evid. 1002. The maid of honor’s testimony is not subject to the best-evidence rule. The best evidence rule guards against unreliable documentary evidence in the form of a writing, recording, or photograph, by requiring an original. Here, the maid of honor is providing testimony based upon her own personal recollections. Note that photograph is likely admissible if the surviving spouse does not attempt to introduce it by itself to prove its contents, but rather, through the maid of honor’s testimony. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1002 note that the best evidence rule seldom applies to exclude ordinary photographs. In a typical case, a proponent would use a witness to identify that a photograph correctly represents events he saw. In such cases the proponent is not using the photo to prove its contents; rather, the proponent is using the photograph to illustrate the witness’s testimony. The surviving spouse could use a similar strategy, using the photograph to illustrate the maid of honor’s testimony here

Answer 104

D) No, because the prosecution also has to show that the printout accurately reflects the electronically stored information. Rule 1001(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence sets forth the definition of an original writing, recording, or photograph for purposes of the best evidence rule. Although the definition states that an original of electronically stored information includes a printout of the information, it also requires that the printout accurately reflect the electronically stored information. Therefore, the proponent of a printout of electronically stored information may offer it as the original of the information only upon a demonstration that the printout accurately reflects the stored information.

Answer 105

B) Yes, because there is no indication that the video does not accurately present the scene. A digitally enhanced photograph or video may be considered an admissible duplicate of the original photograph or video, so long as the enhancements do not affect the accuracy of the substance of the image itself. Digital enhancements may include enlarging the image, adjusting the brightness or contrast, or slowing time-lapse recordings to normal speed. Fed. R. Evid. 1001(e), 1003;

HYPOS (E&E, Casebook, Quimbee, Steinhauser) Flashcards

(129 cards)