IL Distinctions Flashcards
Distinctions in Fed/ IL for character evidence
1) specific acts on cross examination
2) victims character
3) Special rule for battery or homicide cases
are specific acts on cross examination of a character witness allowed in IL
NO. cross examination of a character witness about SPECIFIC ACTS not allowed
- Fed: could cross on specific acts
in IL when the D introduces evidence of the victims character can the prosecution rebut with D’s same character
NO. prosecution is not allowed to rebut with evidence of D’s character, only rebut with victims good quality
-Fed: can rebut with evidence of D’s character
in IL what is the special rule for homicide or battery cases dealing with the victim and specific acts
(1) when the D claims self defense AND
2) there is a conflicting evidence as to w/e the alleged victim was the first aggressor
3) d MAY prove specific instances of the alleged victim’s prior violent conduct
-Fed: when proving character of the victim, the D MAY NOT prove specific instances of conduct
does IL apply dead mans statute
YES.
- if interested party, not competent to testify on the issue.
what is the rule in IL about impeachment by prior inconsistent statements
when using a prior inconsistent statement need to give the W the opportunity to EXPLAIN OR DENY the statement BEFORE introducing the extrinsic evidence of the statement
-Fed: DO NOT need to show W before impeachment
in IL when does the party need to give notice of prior inconsistent statement a chance to explain or deny the statement?
BEFORE introducing the extrinsic evidence
in IL can you impeach a W by specific instances of NON-CONVICTION misconduct
NO.
- Fed: can ex: lied on resume
in IL can a prior consistent statement be used as substance evidence
NO. but may be used as a prior consistent statement for rehabilitation
in IL when can a prior identification ONLY be used
in criminal cases
in IL when can a prior inconsistent statement ONLY be used as SUBSTANTIVE evidence
can only be used as substantive evidence in CRIMINAL cases
In IL what is the extra step where a prior inconsistent statement as subtantive evidence in criminal cases can be allowed
1) explains an event or condition about which the declarant has personal knowledge AND
(a) was written or signed by the declarant or
(b) the declarant acknowledged under oath the making of the statement in the current testimony or at previous trial; or
(c) the statement is rove to have been accurately recorded (ex: by a tape/digital recorder)
then the prior inconsistent statement is NOT hearsay
In IL is there a present sense impression x/c to hearsay
NO
in IL what is the limitation on purposes of medical treatment or diagnosis x/c for hearsay
a statement made to a healthcare providers consulted SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF LITIGATION is NOT admissible
what is the difference between fed/IL for past recollection recorded (recorded recollection)
In Feds it is only READ into evidence
- IL it is RECEIVED into evidence
