Article I. General Provisions Flashcards
What is the scope of the Federal Rules of Evidence?
The Federal Rules of Evidence apply to proceedings in United States courts. FRE 101(a) (2012). See also, FRE 1101 (2012).
What is included within the concept of “records”?
"Record" includes a memorandum, report, or data compliation. FRE 101(b)(4) (2012).
What are five policy justifications for evidence law?
(1) Mistrust of juries;
(2) To serve substantive policies related to matters being litigated;
(3) To further substantive policies unrelated to the matter in suit (extrinsic substantive policies);
(4) To ensure accurate factfinding; and
(5) To control the scope and duration of trials.
What is the Federal Rules of Evidence stated purpose?
To administer every proceeding fairly, elminate unjusifiable expense and delay, and promote the development of evidence, to the end of ascertaining the turth and securing a just determination.
What is required to preserve a claim of error if the ruling admits evidence?
(1) The error must affect a substantial right.
(2) The party must, on the record, timely object or move to strike.
(3) The party must, on the record, state the specific ground for the objection, unless the specific ground was apparent from the context.
FRE 103(a)(1) (2012).
Must a party renew an objection each time opposing party uses evidence admited to preserve his or her claim of error for appeal?
No. Once the court rules definitvely on the record, a party need not renew an objection to preserve a claim of error for appeal. FRE 103(b) (2012).
Must a party renew an offer of proof each time the party would have used evidence admited to preserve his or her claim of error for appeal?
No. Once the court rules definitvely on the record, a party need not renew an offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal. FRE 103(b) (2012).
What must a court do to preserve the record regarding the omission and admission of evidence?
The court may make any statement about the character or form of evidence, the objection made, and the ruling. FRE 103(c) (2012).
What degree of care must the court exercise to ensure juries do not hear inadmissible evidence?
To the extent practicable, the court must conduct a jury trial so that inadmissible evidence is not suggested to the jury by any means. FRE 103(d) (2012).
Must a court direct that an offer of proof be made using a question-and-answer form?
No. The court may direct that an offer of proof be made in question-and-answer form. There is no obligation to do so under the Federal Rules of Evidence. FRE 103(c) (2012).
When can a court take notice of an unpresevered error?
A court may take notice of a plain error affecting a substantial right, even if the claim of error was not properly preserved. FRE 103(e) (2012).
What are three major policy reasons for allowing timely objections?
(1) Objections help the trial court avoid error by reconsidering its ruling and taking necessary corrective measures.
(2) Objections give the proponent a chance to avoid problems of proof.
(3) Requiring parties to object serves the broader interest of providing a fair but not ednless chance to litigate.
Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Evidence 7 (5th ed. 2012).
What is a motion to strike?
A motion to strike is a delayed objection.
Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Evidence 7 (5th ed. 2012).
What is a waiver?
A waiver is failing to object or filing a motion to strike. Waiving otherwise inadmissible evidence makes the issue only appealable if their is a plain error.
Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Evidence 7 (5th ed. 2012).
In a multi-party litigation, does one party’s objections preserve a claim of error for all similiarly situated parties?
Generally, if one of many parties on the same side of a lawsuit raises an objection that objection applies accross all parties on that side of the lawsuit.
Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Evidence 8 (5th ed. 2012).
When is an objection timely?
An objection is timely if it is statedwhen the grounds first become apparent. Usually, this is after the question is put but before it is answered.
Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Evidence 8 (5th ed. 2012).
Do general objections preserve a claim of error?
No. General objections, which use broad terms and make vauge complaints, do not preserve the claim of error.
Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Evidence 9 (5th ed. 2012).
What advantage makes general objections advantagous?
If a general objection is sustained (even under a mistaken theory) often are upheld if excluding the evidence was right for any possible reason.
Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Evidence 9 (5th ed. 2012).
When are the grounds for objection apparent?
(1) If the parties have previously argued the point.
(2) A previous question to a witness raised the same or a substantially similar point that the objector obviously means to raise again.
(3) The nature of the question precludes any other reasonable interpretation.
(4) The underlying principle raised by the objector is elementary and obvious in the context.
Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Evidence (5th ed. 2012).
Must an objection raised by motion in limmie be raised again at trial to preserve a claim of error?
No. Any applicable object raised at any point in the process to evidence preserves a claim of error. FRE 103(b) (2012).
What two affirmative strategies prevent a claim of error from being preserved?
(1) Invited error and
(2) opening the door;
both are forms of waiver.
Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Evidence 12 (5th ed. 2012).
What is “invited error”?
Invited error describes what happens when a party puts a question to a witness and gets a fair and responsive answer.
Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Evidence 12 (5th ed. 2012).
What is “opening the door”?
Opening the door describes what happens when one party introduces evidence and another introduces counter-proof to refute or contradict the initial evidence.
Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Evidence 12 (5th ed. 2012).
What are the policy consideration justifying invited error?
Letting parties introduce evidence and examine witnesses while relieving them from the consequences of their strategic choices would be wasteful and even worse if continuous litigation proved more attractive to a resourceful party than reaching final judgment.
Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Evidence 13 (5th ed. 2012).