Evidence Flashcards
When can an expert witness testify?
A witness is qualified to provide expert opinion testimony if the witness has specialized knowledge, skill, experience, education, or training in a subject that pertains to an issue in the case. Whether a witness meets these qualifications is a preliminary question for the court—not the jury. The court is not bound by the rules of evidence in deciding such questions. Therefore, the court may consider otherwise inadmissible hearsay in determining if a witness is qualified to provide expert opinion testimony.
Expert testimony may be based on facts/data:
(1) personally observed by expert
(2) made known to expert during trial; or
(3) made known to expert before trial if other experts would reasonably rely on fact/data when forming opinion
When is evidence relevant?
Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a material fact more or less probable than it would be w/o the evidence, and it is admissible unless excluded by a specific rule or law.
However, relevant evidence can be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by any of the following dangers:
(1) unfair prejudice - evidence tends to encourage the jury to decide the case on improper grounds;
(2) confusing the issues - evidence leads the jury to focus on a nonmaterial matter;
(3) misleading the jury - evidence creates misconceptions in the jurors’ minds;
(4) undue delay or wasting time - presenting the evidence will cause unnecessary delay or waste time;
(5) needless cumulation - similar evidence on the same issue has already been admitted.
What are the non character purposes for admitting crime or bad act?
Evidence of a criminal defendant’s prior crimes or wrongful acts is inadmissible if it is used to show the defendant’s propensity (or inclination) to commit the charged crime. That is bc the probative value of such character evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. This helps to ensure that the jury convicts the defendant for committing the charged crime—not for having a bad character.
However, evidence of a prior crime or wrongful act is admissible for relevant, noncharacter purposes:
(1) Motive - to show purpose for committing charged crime;
(2) Intent - to establish guilty mind or negate good faith;
(3) Absence of Mistake - to negate mistake or accident & prove deliberate act;
(4) Identity - to connect defendant to crime with unique patter of behavior;
(5) Common plan or scheme - to show preparation or planning;
(6) Other - to show knowledge of crime, opportunity to commit crime, consciousness of guilt, etc.
When can a criminal defendant present evidence of his/her character?
A criminal defendant may present evidence that his/her character is inconsistent with the charged crime. But evidence of the defendant’s good character can only be established by calling a witness to provide reputation or opinion testimony (as seen here). Once the defendant’s character witness has testified, the prosecution may:
(1) Cross-examine the witness about a specific act committed by the defendant that relates to the trait in question; or
(2) Call another witness to provide reputation or opinion testimony on the defendant’s corresponding bad-character trait.
Questions about specific acts committed by the defendant are permitted because knowledge (or lack thereof) of the defendant’s past behavior goes to the witness’s credibility. But such questions must be asked by the prosecution in good faith. This means that questions based on a hunch will not suffice—even when the hunch proves accurate.
When can a party impeach with criminal conviction?
Any witness, including a criminal defendant, can be impeached with evidence of a prior conviction for a crime involving dishonesty if the conviction occurred within the previous 10 years.
What are the methods of impeaching a witness?
When such evidence bears on the witness’s credibility, it can be raised on cross-examination or introduced extrinsically through other sources:
(1) Character for truthfulness
(2) Self-interest / bias
(3) Prior inconsistent statement
(4) Specific contradiction
(5) Sensory abilities
What is the best evidence rule?
This rule requires that the original document OR a reliable duplicate (duplicates are admissible unless original’s authenticity is questioned or it would be unfair to admit them) be produced to prove the contents of a document. Implicated in two situations:
(1) when a witness is relying on the document while testifying; or
(2) when the contents of the document are at issue: (a) document used to prove the happening of an event; (b) document has a legal effect; or (c) witness testifying based on facts learned from the document, as opposed to personal knowledge.
Exceptions to this rule include:
(1) Original unavailable;
(2) Admission by party;
(3) Public record
When are out-of-court statements admissible?
Out-of-court statements are admissible if witness is subject to cross-examination & prior statement:
Statement by declarant-witness
(1) is inconsistent with current testimony & was made under penalty of perjury;
(2) is consistent with current testimony & offered to (a) rebut charge of fabrication/improper influence or (b) rehabilitate witness; or
(3) identifies person witness perceived earlier.
Out-of-court statement admissible if offered against opposing party & statement was:
Statement by party-opponent:
(1) made or adopted by party;
(2) made by person authorized by party;
(3) made by party’s agent/employee on matter within scope of relationship; or
(4) made by party’s coconspirator during & in furtherance of conspiracy
How can a witness’s prior inconsistent statement be used?
A prior inconsistent statement is a past statement that is contrary to a witness’s present testimony. This type of statement is inadmissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein (ie. as substantive evidence) unless it is excepted or excluded from the hearsay rule. It will be excluded from hearsay (ie. is nonhearsay) if:
(1) the statement was given under penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, deposition, or other proceeding and
(2) the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination at the current trial.
When are final judgment of convictions admissible?
(1) entered after trial or guilty plea;
(2) crime punishable by death or imprisonment of more than one year;
(3) admitted to prove any fact essential to judgment; and
(4) against defendant, when offered by prosecutor in criminal case for purpose other than impeachment
What is the rule of completeness?
The rule of completeness allows a party to immediately respond to a writing or recorded statement that has been introduced by an opposing party. Under this rule, the responding party may introduce any part of the previously admitted writing or recorded statement, or any other writing or recorded statement, that in fairness should be considered at the same time. These statements must be explanatory or relevant to the previously admitted statement. This is true even if the responding statement is otherwise inadmissible.
What are the presumptions of law in federal civil cases?
Under this rule, when state law supplies the rule of decision for a claim or defense, the court should apply state law to determine the effect of a presumption on the claim or defense.
When is character evidence admissible?
Character evidence is generally inadmissible when it is used to prove that a person acted in conformity with his/her character during the litigated event. But such evidence is admissible substantively in rare instances when character (or a character trait) is an essential element of a civil claim, criminal charge, or asserted defense. In such cases, character evidence can be introduced by any party through either:
(1) Reputation or opinion testimony on that essential character trait; or
(2) Specific instances of conduct (e.g., prior instances of adultery) demonstrating that trait.
Examples:
(1) Defamation
(2) Negligent entrustment
(3) Child custody
(4) Entrapment
(5) Negligent hiring
When is evidence of a person’s habit admissible?
Evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice is admissible to prove that the person or organization acted in accordance with that habit or practice on a particular occasion. A habit is a person’s routine reaction to a specific set of circumstances that is semiautomatic in nature and is considered highly probative of the person’s conduct on a particular occasion. A witness who is familiar with the person—and his/her habit—may testify to prove the existence of that habit (as seen here). The witness need not have been present at the event in question to do so.
When can a lay witness testify?
A lay witness may testify to any relevant matter of which he/she has personal knowledge. This means that the witness must have perceived the matter firsthand and have a present recollection of that observation.
