Evidence Flashcards
When is a chain of custody authentication necessary?
When evidence can easily be tampered with or confused.
Chain of Custody
A log or a system showing that the piece of evidence to be admitted has not been tampered with and who has handled said piece of evidence
Hearsay
An out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted
Felony Convictions Hearsay Exception
Judgments of felony convictions are admissible in both criminal and civil actions to prove any facts essential to the judgment, whether the judgment arose after the trial or upon a guilty plea. In a criminal case it can be used for this purpose only against the accused.
How to prove reliability of a treatise
- Ask an expert on cross
- Testimony of another expert saying its good
- Judicial Notice
Learned Treatise Hearsay Exception
A treatise is admissible when for impeachment or substantive evidence during expert testimony where the expert relied on the treatise or is being impeached with it.
It is used when:
1. Expert is on the stand and it is called to his attention
2. It’s established as reliable
The content of the treatise is hearsay because it is an out-of-court statement being offered for the truth of its contents. There is a hearsay exception that allows portions of learned treatises to be read into evidence, but this exception applies only when the treatise is being used on direct or cross-examination of an expert witness. The treatise is read into evidence only-it is not received by the jury as an exhibit.
Impeachment
Casting of an adverse reflection on the veracity of a witness
How to impeach a witness?
- Cross-Examination
- Extrinsic Evidence (another witness)
You can use character evidence of reputation or testimony, specific acts can not be proved by extrinsic evidence. Specific acts of misconduct that are probative of truthfulness may be inquired into on cross.
If using past recollection is recorded with extrinsic evidence, only the party who didn’t offer it may introduce it into evidence.
Extrinsic evidence also cannot be offered to refute the denial of a prior bad act to show truthfulness.
Prior Inconsistent statements can also be used about material parts of the testimony
A witness may be impeached by means of being interrogated upon cross-examination, at the discretion of the court, with respect to any act of misconduct that is probative of truthfulness (i.e., an act of deceit or lying). The cross-examiner must act in good faith with some reasonable basis for believing that the witness may have committed the bad act inquired about, but it is not required that the witness have been convicted of a crime.
When is impeachment prohibited?
On a collateral matter because waste of time and not materially relevant.
Collateral Matter
One not directly related to the case
Statement against Interest hearsay exception
Statements of a person, now unavailable as a witness, against the person’s pecuniary, proprietary, or penal interest when named are admissible
When are evidence of D’s other crimes admissible?
Evidence of the defendant’s other crimes or misconduct is inadmissible if offered solely to establish criminal disposition. A broad exception to the general rule permits evidence of other crimes or misconduct to be admitted if such acts are relevant to some issue other than the character of the defendant to commit the crime charged.
Examples of Evidence Admissible Under Common Scheme
To show a signature crime therefore showing that it is a common scheme the D commits these crimes - needs to be more than one instance and needs to be identifiable
Admitting Writings
Whenever there are writings there can be issues with authentication, best evidence, or hearsay.
Must be authenticated by proof showing that the wiring is what the proponent proclaims. Need proof that is sufficient to support a jury finding of genuineness.
A lay witness who has personal knowledge of the handwriting of the supposed writer may state his opinion as to whether the document is in that person’s handwriting.
A nonexpert can’t become familiar with the writing at trial, however, a jury may compare pieces of evidence to determine if they are the same handwriting.
Former Testimony Hearsay Exception
The testimony of a now unavailable witness given at another hearing, made under oath, is admissible in a subsequent trial as long as there is a sufficient similarity of parties and issues so that the opportunity to develop testimony or cross-examine at the prior hearing was meaningful.
The party against whom the former testimony is offered must have had the opportunity to develop the testimony at the prior proceeding by direct, cross-, or redirect examination of the declarant.
Grand Jury testimony is inadmissible because there is no cross-examination.
Real or Demonstrative Evidence
Admissible when relevant and authenticated. A photograph is authentication by testimony that the photo is faithful reproduction of the object or scene.
Character Evidence
evidence of character to prove the conduct of a person is not admissible unless proof of the person’s character as a matter of substantive law is an essential element of a claim or defense in a civil action. This can be reputation, opinion, or specific acts. This is for crimes such as fraud, defamation, negligent entrustment, and child custody cases.
Character evidence is admissible if offered for noncharacter purposes, to show MIMIC - to show Motive, intent, Mistake (absence of), Identify, Common Scheme. This is only allowed if D is contesting one of the MIMIC categories. It can be used as part of the case in chief.
Authenticating A Voice
Any person familiar with an alleged speaker’s voice may authenticate a recording by giving an opinion as to identity.
Dying Declaration Hearsay Exception
A statement is admissible in a homicide or civil case when a now unavailable declarant made the statement while believing his death to be imminent and concerns the cause or circumstances of what he believed to be his impending death.
Declarant need not actually die, just be unavailable. Can’t just be a suspicion as to why they died
If this fails, can sometimes come in as an excited utterance.
Prior Acts of Sexual Assault
In a criminal case where D is accused of sexual assault, prior acts of sexual assault may be considered on any matter to which it is relevant
Judicial Notice
Judicial notice may be taken of facts that are not subject to reasonable dispute because they are generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. The facts need not be known everywhere as long as they are known in the community where the court is sitting. The jury is not required to accept it as conclusive in a criminal case, the judge is to instruct them of that.
When are you allowed to present character evidence of your own witness?
When credibility has been attacked by the defense. You can not bring an additional witness to bolster the credibility of the first witness.
You can impeach your own witness at any time, there is common wrong answer choices on the bar.
Opinion Testimony by a Lay Witness
Where an event is likely to be perceived as a whole impression, rather than as more specific components, opinions by lay witnesses are generally admitted. These are on topics of general appearance or condition, state of emotion, matters involving sense recognition, voice or handwriting identification, speed of moving objects, the value of own services, rationality of another conduct, and intoxication.
The witness must have had the opportunity to observe the event that forms the basis of her opinion. A witness who has seen a person and is able to describe that person’s actions, words, or conduct may express an opinion as to whether that person was lucid or senile. One matter about which a lay witness may testify is the general appearance or condition of a person
Expert Testimony
Expert testimony is admissible if:
(i) the subject matter is one where scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge would help the trier of fact understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue;
(ii) the opinion is based on sufficient facts or data; (iii) the opinion is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(iv) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case