Pg 5 Flashcards
What is considered to be a compound objection?
When the question asked more than one fact at a time. I.e.: “did you see defendant hit and kick witness?“
What is the trouble with asking a compound question, that necessitates an objection for compound?
It can confuse the witness or the jury because it’s not clear what is being asked
What is involved in the objection to a question being vague?
If the question asked would confuse a witness or the jury and wasn’t a clean question
What is an example of a vague question that would necessitate an objection for vagueness?
“You worked at the company for 30 years? What was your salary?“ This is vague as to time, since the salary surely changed during the time with the company
What does it mean if you object because a question lacks foundation?
The witness must have foundation based on personal knowledge in order to testify about a topic, and that foundation must be established beforehand
What would the objection be to this conversation? “Who had the red light?” “Defendant” “How do you know?” “My roommate told me”
Lacks foundation
What is entailed in the objection to a question for speculation?
A witness cannot speculate about what someone else thought or what the witness would have done if the facts have been different
What is entailed in the objection to a question for beyond the scope?
On cross-examination, things cannot be asked about if they were not addressed on direct
What is the exception to the objection for beyond the scope?
On cross examination you can ask about anything that affects the witness’ credibility, even if it was not covered on direct
If on direct examination you deal with an accident where the defendant sideswiped the victim’s car, and then on cross-examination you ask if the victim was curling her eyelashes while driving, would that be considered an objection for beyond the scope?
No because of the exception that allows you to ask things about the witness’ credibility even if they were not covered on direct
What is included in the objection for non-responsiveness?
This is actually an objection to the answer, not the question and it comes up when the question asks for a yes or no, but the witness evades it
What would the objection be to the following exchange?
“Is this true?“
“Well true can mean a lotta things…“
Non-responsive, because the witness didn’t actually answer, so the attorney can object and move to strike that answer as non-responsive
Is it possible for a witness to be excluded from the court proceedings?
Yes, it can happen at a party’s request or on the court’s initiative. The court orders the witness to be excluded so that he can’t hear the other witness’ testimony and this avoids him changing his own story to match the other’s because he was subconsciously influenced
Who are the people that cannot be excluded from a court proceeding?
– anyone that is a party to the case
– an officer or employee of the party’s representative/attorney
– a person whose presence the party shows is essential to his claim or defense
– a person authorized by statute to be present
– expert witnesses that are essential to give counsel assistance
– parents or guardians of minor kids
Do victims of crime have the right to be present at all proceedings related to the offense?
Yes, unless the court determines that their testimony will be materially affected if they hear other testimony at trial
Is it permissible for a court to separate witnesses so that they cannot communicate with each other?
Yes
What is the threshold issue that must always be considered first in evidence?
Relevance
What is the definition of relevance?
Relevance involves:
- Probity
- Materiality
Relevant evidence has any tendency in reason to make a fact of consequence more or less likely
What does relevance really require?
It requires you to identify a material proposition that the evidence is probative of, you have to address the purpose that the evidence is being offered for
Can irrelevant evidence be admitted?
No
What is the FRE 401 test for relevant evidence?
Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence (PROBATIVE), and the fact is of consequence in determining the action (MATERIAL).
If evidence is just background in nature and meant to aid understanding, can it be admitted?
Yes, that is still relevant
What are the two elements to prove relevance?
The evidence must be both probative and material
What is the standard to determine if something is relevant?
You just need minimal logical relevance
What is included in materiality as an element of relevance?
The fact is of consequence in determining the action. This is determined by what is at issue in the case
Is consent relevant in a statutory rape case?
No, because consent is not an element of statutory rape. This is why it’s important to know the substantive issues or elements to determine if something is relevant
What are the three ways you can take an issue out of dispute and make it no longer material?
– make an admission in the answer
– make an admission in response to a request for admission
– stipulate to a fact being deemed as true for the litigation
If a party makes an admission in an answer, what does that look like?
They concede that they were travelling 100 miles an hour
What does it mean to make an admission in response to a request for admission?
One party can propound a request for admission from the other party during discovery. I.e.: admit to speeding. This removes the issue from the case
If a party stipulates to a fact as being deemed true for the litigation, what does that do?
It removes the fact from the realm of disputed facts that must be proved by evidence
What is the difference between a stipulation to a fact and a stipulation to evidence?
Stipulation to evidence can be contradicted, but a stipulation to fact cannot be
If a defendant stipulated that the light was red when he entered the intersection, can that be contradicted later?
No, because that was a stipulation to a fact
If a defendant stipulated that a witness would testify that the light was red, but the witness testified that the light was green, is that OK?
Yes, because that was a stipulation to evidence, which can be contradicted
What about a testifying witness is always considered to be material?
Their credibility, even if it has nothing to do with the cause of action or defences because witnesses are a primary form of evidence presented to juries about the facts in question. Because humans make mistakes, whether the jury should believe what the witness is saying is always material
