Rules Flashcards
4 (b)
“Attorneys shall not ask questions calling for information outside the scope of case materials or requesting an unfair extrapolation…”
Rule 3 (d)
“A witness is not bound by the facts contained in other witness statements”
Rule 4(c)
“Attorneys for the opposing team may refer to Rule 4 in a special objection, such as ‘unfair extrapolation’ or ‘This information is beyond the scope of the statement of facts”
Rule 19
“Bench conferences may be granted at the discretion of the presiding judge, but should be made from the councel table in the educational interest of handling all matters in open court”
Rule 39
-Stipulations-
Stipulations shall be considered part of the record and already admitted into evidence.
Rule 44
Argumentative/Ambiguous Questions and Non-responsive Answer
Rule 44(a)
“Argumentative — An attorney shall not ask a question which asks the witness to agree to a conclusion drawn by the question without eliciting testimony as to new facts; provided, however, that the court may in its discretion allow limited use of argumentative questions on cross examination.”
Rule 44(b)
“Ambiguous Questions — An attorney shall not ask questions that are capable of being understood in two or more possible ways.”
Rule 44(c)
“Non-Responsive Answer — A witness’ answer is objectionable if it fails to respond to the question asked.”
45
-Assuming Facts Not in Evidence-
“An attorney shall not ask a question that assumes unproved facts…”
46
-Lack of Proper Predicate/Foundation-
“Attorneys shall lay a proper foundation prior to moving admission of evidence…”
50(a)
-“Objections” During Openings/Closings-
“No objections may be raised during opening statements or during closing arguments…”
Do the whole “I would have objected to…” thing after.
50(b)
-Scope of Closing Arguments-
“Closing Arguments must be based on the actual evidence and testimony presented during the trial, including rebuttal.”
201
Judicial notice
401
-Test for Relevant Evidence-
Evidence is relevant if:
(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and
(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.
402
-General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence-
403
-Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons-
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
404
-Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts-
404(a)
Character evidence
404 (a) 1.
-Prohibited Uses of Character Evidence-
Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.
404.(b)
-Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts-
404.(b).1.
-Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts-
Prohibited Uses.
Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
404.(b).2.
-Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts-
Permitted Uses.
This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.
405.(a)
-Methods of Proving Character-
By Reputation or Opinion
When evidence of a person’s character or character trait is admissible, it may be proved by testimony about the person’s reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion.
On cross-examination of the character witness, the court my allow an inquiry into relevant specific instances of the person’s conduct.
405.(b)
-Methods of Proving Character-
By Specific Instances of Conduct.
When a person’s character or character trait is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, the character trait may so be proved by relevant specific instances of the person’s conduct.
406.
—Habit, Routine Practice—
Evidence if a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice. The court may admit this evidence regardless of whether it is corroborated or whether there was an eyewitness.
602.
—Need for Personal Knowledge—
A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter…
608.
—A Witness’s Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness—
608.(a)
—A Witness’s Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness—
-Reputation or Opinion Evidence-
A witness’s credibility may be attacked or supported by testimony about the witness’s reputation for having a character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or by testimony in the form of an opinion about that character. But evidence of truthful character is only admissible after the witness’s character for truthfulness or untruthfulness has been attacked.
608.(b)
—A Witness’s Character For Truthfulness or Untruthfulness—
-Specific Instances of Conduct-
…extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness’s conduct in order to attack or support the witness’s character for truthfulness. But the court may, on cross-examination, allow them to be inquired into if they are probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of:
1. the witness; or
2.another witness whose character the witness on cross-examination has testified about.
By testifying on another matter, a witness does not waive any privilege against self-incrimination for testimony that relates only to the witness’s character for truthfulness.
611.(b)
—Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation—
-Scope of Cross-examination-
The scope of cross-examination shall not be limited to the scope of the direct examination…
611(c)
—Mode of Order of Interrogation and Presentation—
-Leading Questions-
Leading questions should not be used on direct examination except as necessary to develop the witness’s testimony…the court should allow leading questions on cross-examination.
701.
—Opinion Testimony by Lay Witness—
If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is:
(a) rationally based on the witness’s perception;
(b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining the fact in issue; and
(c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.