Pg 5

Question 1

What is considered to be a compound objection?

Answer 1

When the question asked more than one fact at a time. I.e.: “did you see defendant hit and kick witness?“

Question 2

What is the trouble with asking a compound question, that necessitates an objection for compound?

Answer 2

It can confuse the witness or the jury because it’s not clear what is being asked

Question 3

What is involved in the objection to a question being vague?

Answer 3

If the question asked would confuse a witness or the jury and wasn’t a clean question

Question 4

What is an example of a vague question that would necessitate an objection for vagueness?

Answer 4

“You worked at the company for 30 years? What was your salary?“ This is vague as to time, since the salary surely changed during the time with the company

Question 5

What does it mean if you object because a question lacks foundation?

Answer 5

The witness must have foundation based on personal knowledge in order to testify about a topic, and that foundation must be established beforehand

Question 6

What would the objection be to this conversation?
“Who had the red light?”
“Defendant”
“How do you know?”
“My roommate told me”

Answer 6

Lacks foundation

Question 7

What is entailed in the objection to a question for speculation?

Answer 7

A witness cannot speculate about what someone else thought or what the witness would have done if the facts have been different

Question 8

What is entailed in the objection to a question for beyond the scope?

Answer 8

On cross-examination, things cannot be asked about if they were not addressed on direct

Question 9

What is the exception to the objection for beyond the scope?

Answer 9

On cross examination you can ask about anything that affects the witness’ credibility, even if it was not covered on direct

Question 10

If on direct examination you deal with an accident where the defendant sideswiped the victim’s car, and then on cross-examination you ask if the victim was curling her eyelashes while driving, would that be considered an objection for beyond the scope?

Answer 10

No because of the exception that allows you to ask things about the witness’ credibility even if they were not covered on direct

Question 11

What is included in the objection for non-responsiveness?

Answer 11

This is actually an objection to the answer, not the question and it comes up when the question asks for a yes or no, but the witness evades it

Question 12

What would the objection be to the following exchange?
“Is this true?“
“Well true can mean a lotta things…“

Answer 12

Non-responsive, because the witness didn’t actually answer, so the attorney can object and move to strike that answer as non-responsive

Question 13

Is it possible for a witness to be excluded from the court proceedings?

Answer 13

Yes, it can happen at a party’s request or on the court’s initiative. The court orders the witness to be excluded so that he can’t hear the other witness’ testimony and this avoids him changing his own story to match the other’s because he was subconsciously influenced

Question 14

Who are the people that cannot be excluded from a court proceeding?

Answer 14

– anyone that is a party to the case
– an officer or employee of the party’s representative/attorney
– a person whose presence the party shows is essential to his claim or defense
– a person authorized by statute to be present
– expert witnesses that are essential to give counsel assistance
– parents or guardians of minor kids

Question 15

Do victims of crime have the right to be present at all proceedings related to the offense?

Answer 15

Yes, unless the court determines that their testimony will be materially affected if they hear other testimony at trial

Question 16

Is it permissible for a court to separate witnesses so that they cannot communicate with each other?

Answer 16

Yes

Question 17

What is the threshold issue that must always be considered first in evidence?

Answer 17

Relevance

Question 18

What is the definition of relevance?

Answer 18

Relevance involves:

1. Probity
2. Materiality

Relevant evidence has any tendency in reason to make a fact of consequence more or less likely

Question 19

What does relevance really require?

Answer 19

It requires you to identify a material proposition that the evidence is probative of, you have to address the purpose that the evidence is being offered for

Question 20

Can irrelevant evidence be admitted?

Answer 20

No

Question 21

What is the FRE 401 test for relevant evidence?

Answer 21

Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence (PROBATIVE), and the fact is of consequence in determining the action (MATERIAL).

Question 22

If evidence is just background in nature and meant to aid understanding, can it be admitted?

Answer 22

Yes, that is still relevant

Question 23

What are the two elements to prove relevance?

Answer 23

The evidence must be both probative and material

Question 24

What is the standard to determine if something is relevant?

Answer 24

You just need minimal logical relevance

Question 25

What is included in materiality as an element of relevance?

Answer 25

The fact is of consequence in determining the action. This is determined by what is at issue in the case

Question 26

Is consent relevant in a statutory rape case?

Answer 26

No, because consent is not an element of statutory rape. This is why it’s important to know the substantive issues or elements to determine if something is relevant

Question 27

What are the three ways you can take an issue out of dispute and make it no longer material?

Answer 27

– make an admission in the answer – make an admission in response to a request for admission – stipulate to a fact being deemed as true for the litigation

Question 28

If a party makes an admission in an answer, what does that look like?

Answer 28

They concede that they were travelling 100 miles an hour

Question 29

What does it mean to make an admission in response to a request for admission?

Answer 29

One party can propound a request for admission from the other party during discovery. I.e.: admit to speeding. This removes the issue from the case

Question 30

If a party stipulates to a fact as being deemed true for the litigation, what does that do?

Answer 30

It removes the fact from the realm of disputed facts that must be proved by evidence

Question 31

What is the difference between a stipulation to a fact and a stipulation to evidence?

Answer 31

Stipulation to evidence can be contradicted, but a stipulation to fact cannot be

Question 32

If a defendant stipulated that the light was red when he entered the intersection, can that be contradicted later?

Answer 32

No, because that was a stipulation to a fact

Question 33

If a defendant stipulated that a witness would testify that the light was red, but the witness testified that the light was green, is that OK?

Answer 33

Yes, because that was a stipulation to evidence, which can be contradicted

Question 34

What about a testifying witness is always considered to be material?

Answer 34

Their credibility, even if it has nothing to do with the cause of action or defences because witnesses are a primary form of evidence presented to juries about the facts in question. Because humans make mistakes, whether the jury should believe what the witness is saying is always material