4. Witnesses Flashcards
The testimonial qualifications a witness must have in order to be allowed to testify
- Personal Knowledge
2. Oath or Affirmation
NY rule for testimony by children
The general rule is that a child of any age may testify under oath if the child understands and appreciates the duty to tell the truth.
Civil cases: A child must be able to testify under oath.
Exception for Criminal cases: A child under the age of 9 who cannot understand the duty of an oath may still testify (i.e., the child may give unsworn testimony.) BUT, a defendant cannot be convicted based solely on the unsworn testimony of a child. There must be some corroborating evidence that the D committed the crime.
NY Dead Man’s Statute
- In a civil action,
- an interested witness
- is incompetent to testify
- against the estate of a decedent
- concerning a personal transaction or communication between the interested witness and the decedent.
New York automobile accident exception
In an auto accident case based on negligence, the surviving interested party:
- May testify about her observations of the decedent’s conduct and demeanor.
- But may not testify about oral statements made by the decedent.
General rules for leading questions
- Generally are not allowed on direct examination of witness.
- Generally are allowed on cross-examination of witness.
Leading questions are allowed on direct exam in four situations:
- Preliminary introductory matters
- Youthful or forgetful witness
- Hostile witness
- Opposing party
Basic Rule for Writings in Aid of Oral Testimony
Witness may not read from prepared memorandum; must testify on basis of current recollection.
But if witness’s memory fails him, he may be shown a memorandum (or any other tangible item) to jog his memory.
Safeguards for Writings in Aid of Oral Testimony
Adversary has right:
- to inspect the memory-refresher
- to use it on cross-examination
- to introduce it into evidence
Hearsay exception for past recollection recorded
Foundation for reading contents of writing to the jury:
- showing writing to witness fails to jog memory
- witness had personal knowledge at former time
- writing was either made by witness, or adopted by witness
- making or adoption occurred while the event was still fresh in the witness’ memory
- witness can vouch for accuracy of writing when made or adopted.
NY distinction for past recollection recorded
If the 5-factor foundation is established, the writing may be shown to the jury. Under FRE, the proponent may only read it to the jury.
Lay opinion admissible if:
(1) The opinion is rationally based on the witness’ perception
(personal knowledge), and
(2) Helpful to the jury
Qualifications for an Expert Witness
- Education (academic degrees)
AND/OR - Experience (personal experience)
Proper Subject Matter for an Expert Witness
Scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge that will be helpful to the jury in deciding a fact.
E.g., an opinion is not helpful if the proposition is obvious, such as expert testimony that children are attracted to red balloons.
Basis of Opinion for an Expert Witness
The expert may draw upon three permissible data sources:
(1) Personal knowledge (e.g., treating physician);
(2) Other evidence in the trial record (testimony by other witnesses, exhibits (medical reports, X-rays))—made known to expert at trial by hypothetical question; or
(3) facts not in evidence (from outside the record) if
the outside material is of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in this particular field in forming opinions
Relevance and Reliability Requirement for an Expert Witness
To be admissible, expert opinion must be relevant to the issue at hand and SUFFICIENTLY RELIABLE. That means the expert must use reliable methods and principles and reliably apply them to the facts of the case.
NY Standard for Relevance and Reliability Requirement for an Expert Witness
If the opinion is based on science (e.g., medicine, engineering, social psychology), the method or principle must have achieved general acceptance in the relevant field (Frye standard).
Learned Treatise in Aid of Expert Testimony (Federal Hearsay Exception)
(1) On direct examination of party’s own expert: Relevant portions of treatise, periodical, or pamphlet may be read into evidence as substantive evidence (to prove truth of matter asserted) if established as reliable authority.
(2) On cross-examination of opponent’s expert: Relevant portions of treatise, etc. may be read into evidence to impeach and contradict opponent’s expert. Also, comes in as substantive evidence.
Learned Treatise in Aid of Expert Testimony (NY Hearsay Exception)
(1) On direct examination of party’s own expert: There is no hearsay exception in New York for the contents of a learned treatise. The treatise may only be used to show the general basis of the expert’s testimony, not as substantive evidence.
(2) On cross-examination of opponent’s expert: The learned treatise may only be used to impeach the expert’s credibility (not as substantive evidence), AND only if the expert relied on the treatise in developing her own opinion or acknowledged on cross that it is a reliable authority.
Proper subject matter for cross examination
- Matters within the scope direct examination,
AND
- Matters that test the witness’s credibility.
Rule on Bolstering Own Witness
Not allowed until after the witness’ credibility has been impeached.
Rule on witnesses prior identification
Witness who made prior identification must testify at trial and must be subject to current cross-examination. For example, if the individual who made the identification at the line-up is out of the country at the time of trial, a police officer who observed the out-of-court identification would not be permitted to testify about it at trial.
Federal Rule on a Party’s Impeachment of Own Witness
Any party may impeach any witness, including her own witness, by any method of impeachment. (Note: Although the Rules speak only of impeaching a witness on cross-examination, a party can impeach her own witness during direct examination.)
NY Rule on a Party’s Impeachment of Own Witness
General rule: A party may not impeach her own witness.
Exception: A party may impeach her own witness with a prior inconsistent statement but only if it was:
(1) made in writing and signed by the witness, or
(2) made in oral testimony under oath.
Additional limitation in criminal cases: the prior inconsistent statement may be used only if the witness’s current testimony is affirmatively damaging to the party who called the witness, not merely a “cloud on credibility.”
Using Prior Inconsistent Statements to Impeach a Witness
A witness may be impeached by showing that on some prior occasion, she made a material statement (orally or in writing) that is inconsistent with her trial testimony.
The prior inconsistent statement is admissible only for the purpose of impeachment (to suggest trial testimony is false or mistaken