Evidence Flashcards
Lay Witness
Personal Knowledge/Perceptions; no conclusions; oath to testify truthfully
Lay opinions are allowed if rationally based on the witness’s perception; helpful to the trier of face; and are not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge
Cannot be a Witness
Judge or Juror (exc. - jurors may testify for the limited purpose of identifying improper outside influence, improper extraneous prejudicial info, or error on the verdict form)
Child Witness
regardless of age, can testify if can tell the difference b/w truth & lie
Expert Witness
Admit (lay foundation for topic they are testifying about by showing experience, edu, publications on that topic); can use outside material to give expert opinion; can give legal conclusions (except.: criminal cases – no expert legal conclusions re mental state about an element [e.g., intent] of a crime/defense)
knowledge, skill, experience, education, or training
if expert opinion relies on otherwise inadmissible facts or date, then the info may be disclosed to the jury if probative value in helping jury evaluate expert opinion substantially outweighs prejudicial effect
can pose hypos to experts, but cannot omit undisputed material facts
Court Control of Witnesses
Reasonable control to make sure Ws are examined to tell the truth, to stop wasting time, or to avoid embarrassing W
Daubert Standard
Admissibility of Expert Witness
Testimony must be product of reliable principles and methods. To determine reliability:
1.) expert’s theory is peer reviewed and published in scientific
2.) whether the theory is tested and subject to retesting
3.) the known or expected rate of error
4.) the existence and maintenance of standards and controls used
5.) whether is subject to a reasonable level of acceptance in the scientific community
Leading Questions
Not allowed on direct (except: hostile witness, an adverse party, a shy/young witness, jog a witness’s memory, lay a foundation, necessary to develop testimony); allowed on cross
Refreshing Recollection
Use any doc/pic to refresh W’s memory. NOT read into evidence.
can use literally anything. “campbell’s chicken noodle soup.”
while testifying, adversary has right to inspect the item, cross-examine, and admit pertinent portions into evidence
Excluding Witnesses
W1 cannot be in the courtroom to hear what the other Ws are testifying about (except: W1 is a party, statute allows it, if needed to properly present case (essential))
judge’s own discretion; mandatory at the request of either party
Roles
Judge = Qs of law & decisions of admissibility; Jury = Qs of fact & decisions re weight of evidence/facts
Objections
Evidence is admitted; must be timely & include grounds of making objection
Offer of Proof
Evidence is excluded; must offer why should be admitted to reserve appeal
Burden of Production
1st P must prove each element of crime/claimif P proves, then D must prove each element of defense
Burden of Persuasion
on P; Civil = PoE (51%); Criminal: BRD
Presumption
Once P meets burden of production, judge finds rebuttable presumption D is guilty/liable
Jury – may accept (D puts on defense), must accept (D does NOT put on defense), conclusive presumption (no contrary evidence bc cannot be debated [e.g., a statute])
Impeachment
Witness
W on stand [inc. D if on stand]; attacking W’s credibility (PIS, bias, or defect)
-Bias - intrinsic or extrinsic evidence
-PIS/Contradiction/Lie – 2 statements; can bring intrinsic & extrinsic evidence (inc. other W)
-CHARACTER FOR TRUTHFULNESS (form of evidence only apply here)
(1) Reputation or Opinion Testimony
(2) Prior Bad Act –> ONLY RELATES TO HONESTY/TRUTHFULNESS + INTRINSIC EVIDENCE
(3) Prior Convictions – Felony –> No, unless w/in last 10 years & passes balancing test); Crime of Untruthfulness –>Yes regardless if felony or misdemeanor = allowed intrinsic & extrinsic evidence
Impeachment & Collateral Matters
No impeachment on irrelevant matter
Impeachment & Substantive Evidence
(1) When a statement is a hearsay exception
(2) a question that impeaches a witness may also be used as substantive evidence if the question concerns a material fact or issue
Relevant
Tendency to make a fact more or less probable (probative) AND fact is of consequence to the outcome of the case (material); all relevant evidence admissible
Inadmissible Relevant Evidence
Unfair prejudice (lie detector test); mislead jury; confuse any issues; cause delays; waste time
Authentication
Evidence is what it claims to be (document, object, writing, voice recording, pictures, charts)
Proving authenticity – direct testimony ID object; special marking/distinctive; testimony by someone with personal knowledge who is familiar with the evidence [most common]), establishing a chain of custody (substantially unbroken history of custodians); comparison against authenticated specimen by expert or jury; x-ray images & electrocardiograms & infrared cameras (just need to show reliable)
Self-Authenticating – nature of doc authenticates itself (official, notarized, newspaper, seal on it)
Character Evidence
Defendant; dealing with bad things D did in past (could be P in civil). Not admissible bc too prejudicial
* Exceptions –
Civil: when character is at issue (defamation/libel/slander; child custody; negligent entrustment; misrepresentation or fraud) Opinion, Reputation, & Specific Acts allowed
sexual assault & child molestation–> specific acts allowed
Criminal:
(1) When D opens door with evidence of good character for peacefulness (for violent crimes) or honest/truthfulness (for dishonest crimes) Reputation or Opinion allowed [P can rebut this evidence w bad evidence that negates same trait Reputation or Opinion allowed ];
can only use specific instances of conduct when character is an essential element of the crime or the defense
(2) MIMIC Exception – circumstantial evidence to show motive, intent, mistake/absence of mistake, ID, or common plan or scheme. Other - to show knowledge of crime, opportunity to commit crime, consciousness of guilt
(3) If D is claiming self-defense, D can show victim was the aggressor
(4) If D is accused of child molestation or sexual assault, P can show evidence of other e.g., of child molestation by D
Habit Evidence
Routine practice; done all the time. Allowed against someone to show they do x all the time (but not liability)
routine practice of a business – allowed to show they acted in conformance w its habit
don’t need evidence to corroborate and don’t need eyewitnesses
Hearsay
NOT admissible. Out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Can be nonverbal conduct if it is intended asa communicative assertion. silence can be treated as a statement if it is intended to make an assertion.
Not offered TOMA – Words of offer/acceptance; libel or slander; verbal acts that show motive or notice; effect on the listener; declarant’s state of mind; reputation; impeachment
Non-Hearsay
(1) Admissions (OP statement of guilt) –> Vicarious; Adoptive (silence when reasonable person would react/object);
2-4 = admissible if W subject to cross-examine
(2) Prior Consistent Statement (used to refute charge that something made up or improper motive or rehabilitate witness. must have been made before the motive to fabricate arose);
(3) Prior Sworn Inconsistent Statement;
(4) Prior ID
2-4 exceptions = declarant must testify & be subject to cross-examination
Unavailability Exceptions
Declarant must be unavailable (e.g., missing, coma, w protection program, dead, plead the 5th, etc.)
Vicarious Admission
Explicit authorization
employee or agent (statement by an agent/employee concerning a transaction w/in the scope of the agent/employee relationship and made during the existence of the relationship)
co-conspirator admissions
Effect on the Listener
Heard or read a statement and was thus put on notice of some info, obtained certain knowledge, had a certain emotion, or behaved reasonably or unreasonably
Declarant’s State of Mind
Not admitted for TOMA, but to show that the declarant believed the facts to be true. Generally, this typically arises when the info provides a motive or explanation for a subsequent act. (1) Knowledge of facts or (2) insanity or mental state (e.g., feeling fear)
Dying Declaration
Unavailability Exceptions.
(1) declarant unavailable (doesn’t have to be dead); (2) believes death is imminent; (3) say why they are dying; (4) applies in a homicide or civil case