Evidence

Question 1

Collateral impeachment rule

Answer 1

Don’t wate time attacking witness during impeachment on a collateralmatter

Question 2

Lay witness testimony

Answer 2

(1) rationally based on what witness percevied
(2) helpful to trier of fact
(3) not based on scientific/technical/specialized knowledge

Question 3

Expert witness testimony

Answer 3

(1) subject matter requires specialized/techincal/scientific knolwedge
(2) opinion based on sufficient facts/data
(3) based on reliable principles and methods
(3) Expert reliably applied principles and methods

Expert must also

(1) possess reasonably probability about opinion
(2) Learned treatise admissible as substance or impeachment if established as reliable aturhority through testimony of expert (on cross or direct)
(3) opinion on ultiamte issue is allowed except crim D’s mental condition where element of crime
(4) PK Not a requirement - can testify based on things they’ve personally observed, things they learned in teh trial, or thins reasonbly relied upon in the profession

Question 4

Character evidence - civil cases where character is at issue

Answer 4

negligent entrustment, defamation, civil fraud, child custody, self-defense defense

Question 5

Impeachment methods - 5

Answer 5

(1) Prior inconsistent statements
- -> Also comes in substantively if made under oath
- -> EE allowed if witness given opp to explain/deny or its an opposing party statement

(2) Bias
- -> EE allowed

(3) Sensory deficiencies (including memory)
- -> EE allowed

(4) Opinion/reputation evidence of truthfulness

(5) Prior convictions
- -> Crime involving dishonesty, comes in
- -> Felony, last 10 years, subject to balancing test

(6) Prior bad acts
- -> NO EE allowed
- -> Ask on Cross only; can’t ask about arrests
- -> Allowed substantively for MIMIC

Question 6

Balancing test: Exclude if

Answer 6

probative value is substantially outweighed by… danger of unfair prejudice
confusion of issues
misleading the jury (give undue weight ot the eivdnece)
Waste of time

Unfair surprise is NOT a valid ground

Question 7

Similar occurances

generally iandmissible except….

Answer 7

(1) plaintiff’s accident history relevant for (1) prior false claims or prior accidents injurying same body part when casusation of injury is at issue
(2) Substnatially similar circumstnaces (e.g., prior accidents caused by same event) admissible if (1) existance was of a dangerous condition; (2) causation and (3) D had notice
(3) absence of similar complaints; for lack of knolwedge of danger
(4) preivous similar acts admissible to show INTENT or MOTIVE
(5) habit if (1) frequency of conduct and (2) particularity of cirumcstances

Question 8

Habit

Answer 8

(1) frequency of conduct and (2) particularity of cirumcstances

look for always, invariably, instinctively

Question 9

PUblic policy reasons

Answer 9

Liability, subseuqnet remedial measures, settlement offers or negotiations, offers to pay medical expenses, withdrawn guilty please

Question 10

Character evidence - criminal

Answer 10

remember, if D opens door, P can reput wiht R/O testimony of hteir own. They can also ask the defendant’s character witness “did you know” or “have you heard”, but no extrinsic evidence is allowed to rebut the response

Question 11

Sex crimes cases

Answer 11

D’s similar conduct is always allowed! Even to show propensity, must give 15 days notice. Civil or criminal

V’s past sexual history
–> specific instances can be used to show someone other than D is source of injury, semen, physical evidence CRIM
–> specific instances of sexual behavior between V/C (crim)
See taylor’s chart

Question 12

Authenticate REal Evidence

Answer 12

(1) testimony that they receognize it (gun is the one at the crime scene or
(2) evidence of unbroken chain of possession

Question 13

Recorded recollection - requirements for admissability (5)

Answer 13

(1) witness must have insufficient recollection, even after refreshing
(2) witness must have made memo/doc/etc or was adopted by tehm
(3) witness has personal knolwedge of facts in the recrod when teh record was made
(4) record was made when teh matter was fresh in teh witness’s mind
(5) REcord accurately reflects witness’s knowledge

Question 14

Recorded recollection - requirements for admissability (5)

Answer 14

(1) witness must have insufficient recollection, even after refreshing
(2) witness must have made memo/doc/etc or was adopted by tehm
(3) witness has personal knolwedge of facts in the recrod when teh record was made
(4) record was made when teh matter was fresh in teh witness’s mind
(5) REcord accurately reflects witness’s knowledge

Question 15

Daubert factors - reliablity of expert testimony

Answer 15

(1) Testing of principal or methodology
(20 rate of error
(3) acceptance by experts in same discipline
(4) peer review and publication

Question 16

Non-hearsay opposing party

Answer 16

employee, partners, co-conspirators comine here

employee: must be (1) made in scope of agency/employment (2) during excistance of eagency/employmetn relatinoship

Question 17

Non-hearsay: prior statements

Answer 17

Must be made by witness who is testifying/avaialble for cross at CURRENT trial

(1) prior inconsistent statements made under oath
(2) prior consistent statemetn offered to rehabilitate (e.g., rebut charge of lying, rehabilitae)
(3) prior identification

Question 18

Former testimony

Answer 18

(1) testimony must have been given under oath and
(2) party had opportunity to cro-ssexamine at prior proceeding
- -> this excludes prior grand jury statements (unlike in priori nconsistent statements)

Question 19

Dying declaration

Answer 19

(1) homocide or civil case
(2) declarant believed death was imminet and
(3) statemetn concerned cause/circumstances

Question 20

Business record

Answer 20

(1) business/organization
(2) made in regular course of conduct
(3) by someone with personal knolwege / business duty to transmit
(4) made at or near the time of the event

Question 21

Rule of completeness

Answer 21

only applies to writings/recorded statements

if one part is admitted, rest can be in fairness