Pg 34

Question 1

What is an important point to remember about a direct admission under party opponent admissions?

Answer 1

It is just necessary that the one side elicits a statement from the opposing side. This can happen in many different ways

Question 2

Does it work for a direct admission to have a defendant’s attorney examine the defendant and ask what he said after the accident, and the defendant says “I said, I can’t believe you were combing your eyebrows.“?

Answer 2

No, because it is the defendant’s out of court statement and it is the defendant that is soliciting the statement through the defendant’s attorney. The person eliciting the statement must be on the opposite side of the person making the statement

Question 3

What is the major focus for a direct admission in order to be a hearsay exception?

Answer 3

Who is eliciting whose statement. It doesn’t matter who the witness is. And the statement has to be made by the party-opponent, not some third-party witness

Question 4

Is it possible to ask a third-party witness what he said after an accident to be used against a defendant as a direct admission?

Answer 4

No, no one cares what a third-party witness said, they only care what the party opponent said

Question 5

What is the important thing to remember for direct admissions as a hearsay exception in criminal cases?

Answer 5

The victim is the state, not the actual victim. So the victim is not technically a party and hence the victim is not considered to be the party opponent of the defendant. This means that the victim’s statements are not admissible as party-opponent admissions when elicited by the defense. Cops that arrested or investigated the defendant are also not parties, so their statements are also not party-opponent admissions

Question 6

Is it possible for documents that have been written by a party opponent to be admissible as direct admissions for a hearsay exception?

Answer 6

Yes. If the defendant sent a letter to the plaintiff that said, “I’m sorry I ran the red light.“That is admissible as a direct admission

Question 7

What kinds of statements are admissible as direct admissions for a hearsay exception?

Answer 7

Any statement, not just admissions. I.e.: a letter that says, “I hope your back is better“ can be admitted just because it is a statement made by a party-opponent

Question 8

How does respondeat superior factor into direct admissions as a hearsay exception?

Answer 8

If a defendant drives his boss’ truck, and the boss gets sued for damages under respondeat superior, and the plaintiff’s witness testified she was at a bar with the boss the night of the accident and he said, “our company is doomed. It’s all our fault.” This is admissible because the boss is the defendant and the plaintiff is eliciting the statement

Question 9

Is the reasoning for a party-opponent admission relevant under a direct admission as an exception to hearsay?

Answer 9

No. It doesn’t matter why the other person said or wrote the thing they did, they are stuck with it

Question 10

If a husband and wife are divorcing and the wife wants to admit a loan application that the husband filed years earlier where he inflated the value of their home, would that be allowed as a direct admission for a hearsay exception?

Answer 10

Yes, even though he had no idea it would eventually be used against him. He wrote it, so he is stuck with it

Question 11

If a plaintiff sues a defendant and the plaintiff testifies that a witness said, “it was all the defendant’s fault.” Would that be allowed as a direct admission?

Answer 11

No, because the out of court statement was coming from a witness, and not the opposing party. Here the witness is not the defendant

Question 12

If a plaintiff sues a defendant and at trial, the plaintiff’s attorney cross-examines the defendant and asks if he jumped out of the car after the accident and said that it was all his fault. Would that be allowed as a direct admission for an exception for hearsay?

Answer 12

Yes because it is the plaintiff’s attorney eliciting a statement from the defendant who is the party opponent

Question 13

Is it OK for a plaintiff’s attorney on the cross examination of the defendant to ask if after the accident the plaintiff jumped out of her car and said it was all the defendant’s fault as a direct admission for a hearsay exception?

Answer 13

No, because that is the plaintiff eliciting her own statement through the defendant’s testimony, and not the statement of a party opponent

Question 14

What is the essential component of a party opponent admission?

Answer 14

The party that is eliciting the out-of-court statement must be on the opposite side from the party that made the out of court statement

Question 15

What is an adoptive admission as a hearsay exception?

Answer 15

A statement made by someone other than the party-opponent can be admitted and used against the party-opponent if he manifested an adoption or belief in its truth. Adoptive admissions allow for both the defendant’s affirmation and also the third-party statement that the defendant is affirming to be admitted

Question 16

If a plaintiff sues a D for a car accident, and the plaintiff calls a third-party witness to ask what happened after the accident. If the witness says, “I said to the defendant ‘it sure looks like you’re at fault.“ And he said, “Yep it does.“ Is that allowed as an adoptive admission for a hearsay exception?

Answer 16

Yes, because even though the words suggesting that defendant was at fault didn’t come from the defendant, he affirmed it as if he agreed with it, and this effectively made the words his own

Question 17

Can silence in the face of an accusation be deemed to be an adoption for adoptive admissions as a hearsay exception?

Answer 17

Silence is deemed to be an adoption (and hence an admission) if a reasonable person in the circumstance would have disputed the statement if they didn’t agree with it.

Question 18

If a witness said, “it sure looks like you’re at fault“ to the defendant and the defendant said nothing, would that be an admission under adoptive admissions?

Answer 18

No

Question 19

If as a defendant was being wheeled away on a stretcher to the ambulance the plaintiff said, “why weren’t you looking where you were going?“ And the defendant didn’t reply, would his silence in the face of an accusation be considered to be an adoptive admission as a hearsay exception?

Answer 19

No, because a reasonable person going to the hospital would not try to respond to that accusation. The same would be true if the plaintiff heard the defendant’s friend say, “whatever you do don’t say a word“ and then the defendant didn’t respond to the plaintiff’s accusation

Question 20

If a plaintiff sues her boss for only giving promotions to employees that slept with him, and the plaintiff calls a witness to testify that she said in front of a secretary, “of course you got promoted, you slept with the boss.“ And the secretary said nothing, and doesn’t even work for the boss anymore, would that be an adoptive admission?

Answer 20

No, because the secretary wouldn’t feel any obligation to rebut that statement since it was not made by the boss or a supervisor.

Question 21

If a defendant stole a necklace and at trial the prosecution has a neighbour testify that he saw the defendant wearing a necklace and said, “I’m guessing you stole it.“ And the defendant didn’t respond, would that be an adoptive admission?

Answer 21

No, because the defendant had no reason to respond to the neighbour’s inquiry. There was no legal, financial, or social consequence for not responding

Question 22

What is involved in an authorized admission as a hearsay exception?

Answer 22

This is an exemption for statements that are offered against a party if they are made by someone the party authorized to make a statement on the subject, or made by the party’s agent or employee on the matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed.

Question 23

What are the elements of an authorized admission as a hearsay exception?

Answer 23

– Statement made by authorized person/agent/employee
– matter within the scope of the relationship
– while the relationship existed, regardless of whether they were on the job at the time

Question 24

What is involved in an agent admission as a hearsay exception?

Answer 24

If a party is an agent of another party, the agent’s statements can be attributed to the party. Usually involves employment relationships

Question 25

If a P sues a pizza company for an accident where the company’s driver hit the plaintiff and said, “I’m sorry I ran the red.“ Is that admissible as an agent admission?

Answer 25

Yes, because even though the driver is not the defendant, and the company did not authorize the driver to make statements for them, the statement is fairly attributable to the defendant pizza company. The statement happened while the driver was driving a delivery truck within the scope of his agency, and he was still employed by the company when it happened. So the driver’s statement can be used against the company as an agent admission. The same would be true if the driver apologized to the plaintiff and admitted running the red two days after the accident happened