Acing Evidence
Author:
Orenstein, Aviva
Edition:
2nd
Copyright Date:
2016
27 chapters
have results for acing evidence
Introduction 7 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Acing Evidence
- Acing Evidence
- Acing Evidence
- Evidence checklists provide advocates with the structural foundation to build creative arguments. Once the technical aspects of evidence have been parsed and organized using your checklist, you will be able to make creative arguments, crafting compelling theories about relevance, prejudice, and evidence policy.
- Finally, it is important to note that the evidence rules do not apply in every situation. Some administrative law courts operate with relaxed evidence rules and the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply to sentencing.
- Open Chapter
Note on the Second Edition 1 result
About the Author 1 result
- Aviva Orenstein, Professor of Law and Val Nolan Fellow, teaches Evidence and Civil Procedure at Indiana University Maurer School of Law. After graduating Cornell Law School, Professor Orenstein clerked for the late Edward R. Becker of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Her academic writing addresses the nexus of evidence and culture, with a focus on gender. Professor Orenstein volunteers as a pro bono attorney in family law cases, particularly those involving guardianship, domestic violence, and abuse and neglect of children. She has three wonderful adult sons, David, Michael, and Benjamin Greenberg, who were not abused (and hardly neglected) in the writing of this book. Her debut novel,
- Open Chapter
Title Page 4 results
Copyright Page 1 result
Halftitle Page 2 results
Chapter 4. Impeachment and Rehabilitation of Witnesses 76 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Impeachment by extrinsic evidence refers to impeachment by any evidence other than questions on cross-examination. A separate witness who contradicts the witness being impeached presents extrinsic evidence. For example, a witness who offers reputation or opinion evidence of another witness’s character provides extrinsic evidence impeaching that witness. A piece of paper such as a business or public record can also constitute extrinsic evidence.
- Evidence of bias may be proved by extrinsic evidence, that is, evidence outside the cross-examination of the witness. Because extrinsic evidence is permitted to demonstrate bias, the crossexaminer is not obliged to “take the answer” of the witness. (holding that even though not mentioned in the Federal Rules, impeachment for bias exists and may be demonstrated by extrinsic evidence).
- Once a witness’s character for truthfulness has been attacked, the opponent may rebut such evidence with reputation and opinion evidence supporting the witness’s Such good-character testimony cannot be triggered unless the witness’s character for honesty has been impugned. Character evidence admitted under Rule 608(a), whether positive or negative, is limited to reputation and opinion evidence.
- For example, if Anna testifies that the light was red and witness Vronsky then testifies that it was green, Vronsky has not only offered independent substantive evidence in the case but has also impeached Anna by contradiction. The common law prohibited the use of extrinsic evidence for impeachment by contradiction on collateral matters. The modern approach abandons the “collaterality” framework but, by using a 403 balance, it accomplishes the same goal of forbidding extrinsic evidence to prove impeachment by contraction if such evidence confuses, distracts, or wastes time.
- • Opinion and reputation evidence about the witness’s character for lack of truthfulness may be presented. Extrinsic evidence in the form of character witnesses may be used to prove the opinion and reputation evidence,
- Open Chapter
Chapter 1. Relevance 44 results (showing 5 best matches)
- provides that all relevant evidence is admissible some other provision—that is, a constitutional provision, statute, or rule—excludes the evidence. Consequently, creates a large pile of relevant evidence that is deemed admissible unless it is excluded some other way, most typically by some other evidence rule. When analyzing an evidence problem, one must decide whether relevant evidence is somehow otherwise inadmissible. Because of this design, most evidence rules are rules of exclusion.
- It would be overwhelming, unfair, and impractical to admit all logically relevant evidence. Therefore, further limits the amount of admissible evidence by screening evidence for practical relevance. Even if evidence passes the admission-happy relevance test of Rule 401, the trial court may nevertheless exclude evidence that is unfairly prejudicial, confusing, distracting, or simply not worth the bother. Rule 403 excludes relevant evidence only if the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, distraction, or waste of time. Although many Federal Rules of Evidence exclude specific types of evidence, Rule 403, which applies to both civil and criminal cases, is a more general and pervasive rule. Its balancing test allows an attorney to argue that the court should exercise its discretion to exclude otherwise admissible evidence for reasons of fairness, confusion, distraction, or waste of time. Thus, the scope of Rule 403 is...
- Relevance is a core concept of evidence. It is the first of many questions one asks about a piece of evidence to determine its admissibility. which addresses logical relevance, defines relevant evidence as evidence that has tendency to make a material fact (a “fact of consequence”) more or less likely. Thus, Rule 401 is a very loose and porous standard—lots of evidence will be deemed relevant, and only in a few areas will there be a serious debate as to the logical relevance of the evidence that a party wishes to introduce.
- It is insufficient for the court to find that one of the enumerated dangers simply exists or somehow outweighs the probative value of the evidence. To exclude the evidence, the danger must outweigh the probative value. Thus, the greater the probative value of the evidence, the more difficult it will be to exclude the evidence under The converse is also true: if the probative value of the evidence is slight, the degree of danger necessary to satisfy the Rule 403 standard can be less.
- also serves a vital function in determining what to do with evidence that is admissible for one purpose but is inadmissible for another. It provides a mechanism for exclusion if the danger that the jury will misuse the evidence substantially outweighs the probative value of the evidence’s permissible use.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 2. Character 100 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Sometimes evidence that looks like impermissible character evidence can nevertheless be admitted because the evidence serves a different, legitimate purpose and is not being introduced as character evidence at all. In other words, the evidence is not being offered to prove propensity.
- • It is one of the very rare occasions, occurring only in civil cases, when character is “in issue” and specific-incident evidence of character is admissible under The evidence is admitted not for circumstantial evidence of general propensity but as direct evidence of character because the trait or character is an essential element of the claim, crime, or defense.
- Yes, the Prosecutor may counter the negative character evidence about the Victim with the same negative character evidence about the Accused, Fed. R. Evid. 404(a)(2)(B)(ii). Such evidence may take the form of reputation or opinion evidence,
- No. Siggy’s evidence is not character evidence, but direct factual evidence concerning the incident, and does not trigger the Prosecutor’s ability to rebut with character evidence.
- Evidence of a person’s character trait or predisposition is generally not admissible to show that she acted according to her character on a particular occasion, Such evidence is called “propensity evidence” and is generally prohibited in both criminal and civil cases, though, as outlined below, there are some important exceptions.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3 Other Relevance Rules 74 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Note, however, that the evidence may still be admitted if it is offered for “another purpose.” If the party proffering the evidence can articulate a valid other purpose for admitting the evidence, the evidence may be admitted if it passes a Rule 403 balancing test. For instance, as will be seen below, although evidence of insurance is not admissible to show negligence, the very same evidence might be admissible to show ownership or control. The trial court would have to apply Rule 403 to balance the unfair prejudice of the impermissible purpose (showing negligence) against the probative value of the permissible purpose (showing ownership or control).
- The subsequent remedial measures rule excludes evidence of safety measures only when the evidence is offered for the forbidden purpose of showing negligence or culpable conduct. Subject to Rule 403 balancing, such evidence may be offered for any other purpose that is actually in controversy, including ownership, control, and the feasibility of taking a remedial action.
- 5. If you have postulated a valid other purpose for the evidence, but the jury might also improperly use the evidence to find validity or consciousness of liability, examine whether the evidence passes Rule 403. In other words, do the confusion, distraction, and unfair prejudice caused by Rule 408’s impermissible purpose substantially outweigh the probative value of the valid other purpose?
- 4. If you have postulated another purpose for the evidence, but the jury might also improperly use the evidence of insurance to find negligence or wrongdoing, does the evidence pass Rule 403? In other words, do the confusion and unfair prejudice caused by the purpose barred by Rule 411 substantially outweigh the valid other purpose?
- Toyota could argue that the jury may overvalue the evidence, but the court is unlikely to exclude the evidence under Rule 403. The European stent is relevant and probative of Toyota’s knowledge as well as the ease of remediation. The probative value of learning about an inexpensive fix that the company already knew about is high. Such probative value is probably not outweighed by the danger of the jury overvaluing the evidence. It also does not raise issues of confusion or distraction. The evidence is certainly prejudicial against Toyota, but not unfairly so.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 15. The Best Evidence Rule 38 results (showing 5 best matches)
- • Has little effect on the course of a trial if lawyers plan ahead and arrive to court prepared. If a lawyer properly prepares her case, the only circumstance in which the best evidence rule should actually exclude evidence is when her client has destroyed such evidence in bad faith. (Destruction of evidence may be a separate crime, but our focus is on the admissibility of statements regarding the document.)
- The best evidence rule applies to writings, recordings, and photographs. “Photographs” include film. The best evidence rule does not reach all tangible evidence. It does not include, for example, a knife, an automobile, or a work of art (all of which still need to be authenticated even though they do not fall under the best evidence rule).
- Examples of the law requiring the writing, recording, or photograph to be introduced include contracts that must be introduced under the parol evidence rule and libelous statements that defamation law requires the plaintiff to enter into evidence.
- The best evidence rule does not require producing the writing, recording, or photograph merely because the item happens to exist. If a witness is testifying about the underlying event based on knowledge from a source other than the writing, recording, or photograph, then the witness is not trying to prove the contents, and the best evidence rule does not apply. The principal concern of the best evidence rule is the danger of mistake or fraud in the oral reporting (or human copying) of the contents of writings, photographs, and recordings.
- A robbery is caught on videotape. If an eyewitness who was present at the robbery is asked, what the robber looked like, the response should not trigger a best evidence objection. The testimony is about what the witness saw, not what is on the videotape. A best evidence objection would be appropriate if a witness who viewed the videotape is asked, “What does the videotape indicate about the robber’s appearance?” By soliciting testimony about the contents of the videotape, the party sponsoring the evidence is attempting to prove the content of the video, and the video itself must be produced.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 11. Opinion Evidence and Expert Testimony 15 results (showing 5 best matches)
- If yes: The expert’s opinion may be admissible even if the expert relied on inadmissible evidence. The fact that the expert may rely on inadmissible evidence does not mean that the expert may repeat such evidence in court, thereby serving as a conduit for inadmissible evidence. The expert may provide the otherwise inadmissible evidence upon which she relied only if the probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. Such information may also be inquired into on cross-examination, Fed. R. Evid. 705. Go to Step 8.
- Historically, American evidence law permitted witnesses to testify about facts only. Drawing conclusions and forming opinions was the exclusive purview of juries and judges. However, the line between “facts” and “opinions” is a fine and probably pointless one to draw, and the Federal Rules of Evidence now allow limited opinion testimony from lay witnesses.
- Just because experts may rely on inadmissible evidence to reach their expert conclusions, however, does not mean that such experts may directly convey those inadmissible facts to the jury. They cannot become conduits for hearsay and other inadmissible evidence.
- • Expert opinion may be based on inadmissible evidence, as long as it is the type of information reasonably used by experts in the field. But generally, the expert may not testify on direct examination about the inadmissible evidence upon which they relied. An opposing party may inquire into such underlying facts and data.
- Therefore, as a general rule, experts may not testify on direct examination about the inadmissible evidence on which they relied. Fed. R. Evid. 703 allows the proponent of the expert to present otherwise inadmissible facts or data underlying her opinion only if, in the discretion of the court, the probative value of those facts or data in helping the jury evaluate the expert’s opinion substantially outweighs the risk of prejudice to the opposing party in making that inadmissible evidence known to the jury. This is a high standard and will not often be met.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 1. Getting Started 15 results (showing 5 best matches)
- In class, your evidence professor—who is not Lady Gaga, though she is wearing a suit made of meat—announces: “My name is Lady Gaga.” At your professor’s commitment hearing, the Dean, who wishes to have your evidence professor committed to a mental institution, offers the statement to demonstrate mental incompetence. The Dean may testify about the statement because although it was out-of-court, it is not being offered for its truth, and therefore it is not hearsay. When offering the evidence to prove incompetence, the Dean is not asking the finder-of-fact to believe the statement is actually true—that your evidence professor is Lady Gaga—just that your evidence professor said it.
- To prove that it was raining, the proponent offers into evidence the fact that the witness saw pedestrians walking outside with open umbrellas. Because the pedestrians did not intend to make a statement by opening the umbrellas, the evidence is not hearsay.
- Observe that the “truth of the matter asserted” is judged by analyzing the statement itself. Is the finder-of-fact being asked to believe that your evidence professor is Lady Gaga? If so, that is a hearsay use. If not, the evidence is being offered for another purpose: to demonstrate circumstantial (or indirect) evidence of state of mind. The finder-of-fact is being asked in this case to infer that your professor is crazy. That is
- For evidence to be considered hearsay, it must: (1) be a statement, (2) have been made out-of-court, and (3) be used by the party offering the statement to show that the matter asserted by the statement is actually true.
- By “out-of-court,” the hearsay rule means outside of the very court proceeding in which the evidence is being offered. A statement in a different court is still considered an “out-of-court” statement. A deposition taken in the case is an out-of-court statement. Testimony from another case or even the same case on retrial is also considered an out-of-court statement.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 16. Evidence on Appeal 37 results (showing 5 best matches)
- If an error does not affect a substantial right of a party, then the error, even if objected to, is harmless. Harmless error is not prejudicial and does not require reversal. In other words, if the other evidence in the case is strong enough that it is likely that the result would have been the same even without the improperly admitted evidence (or with the improperly excluded evidence), then the error was harmless. If there is a substantial chance that the jury could not have reached the same verdict without the evidentiary error, then the error is not harmless. The precise standard for harmless error varies with the type of case, the type of evidence, and the jurisdiction.
- If a party wishes to introduce evidence and the trial court refuses to admit it, the party should inform the court of what it wants to prove by making an offer of proof and creating a record (outside the hearing of the jury) of what the evidence would show. The party should address any evidentiary objections and explain why the evidence is admissible.
- Petunia objects to evidence, arguing that it is hearsay, which it is not. The evidence is, however, excludable as improper character evidence. If the trial court overrules the hearsay objection, Petunia would generally not be able to argue for reversal, because she failed to object with the proper reason. This is generally true even if the disputed evidence would have affected the outcome. Only if the evidentiary ruling was plain error (see below) would the appellate court reverse.
- If yes: The appellate court should reverse the verdict and order a new trial, or, in unusual circumstances and depending on what other evidence exists, substitute a new verdict. Note that plain error is more likely in the admission of evidence than in its exclusion.
- Alice is convicted of selling cocaine. Part of the evidence included a video of Alice conducting the sale. Her attorney correctly objected to improperly authenticated evidence of credit card receipts connecting her to the location where the cocaine was sold, but the trial judge overruled the objection.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 7. Hearsay Exceptions 51 results (showing 5 best matches)
- As to the third requirement above, generally, the Evidence Rules do not require the proponent to provide the most probative evidence; the evidence has to simply be relevant and pass Rule 403. The added restriction limits the residual exception to cases of particular need.
- The common law traditionally permitted a party to refresh a witness’s recollection. This is a non-hearsay use because the evidence is not being offered for its truth. The evidence is shown to the witness (and opposing counsel) but not to the jury. Refreshing memory survived the codification of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The technique of refreshing a witness’s memory is sometimes confused with the
- Despite a generally permissive trend in admitting evidence under the residual exception, there may be limits to how far courts will go. When evidence almost fits under one of the established exceptions, but not quite, this is sometimes called “near-miss” hearsay. Some courts have excluded near-miss hearsay, concluding that Congress did not intend for the evidence to be admitted. An example would be a declaration made in belief of imminent death offered to name the perpetrator in an assault case. Because the current dying declaration rule only applies to homicides and civil cases, this would be a “near miss.”
- • Offer evidence that is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that can reasonably be obtained; and
- exceptions require that the proponent of the evidence must first prove that the declarant is unavailable (such as being dead, too ill, subject to privilege, etc.).
- Open Chapter
Chapter 18. Evidence on Appeal 62 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Note: If there is other, less prejudicial evidence that a party can easily use to prove the same fact, the probative value of the evidence decreases. If there is an effective way of limiting the unfair prejudice through a limiting instruction, the unfair prejudice of the evidence decreases.
- If yes: The party impeaching the witness may bring opinion or reputation evidence concerning the witness’s truthfulness. The impeaching party may also cross-examine about specific instances of the witness’s non-truthfulness, but must accept the witness’s answer; (extrinsic evidence concerning the specific evidence of untruthfulness is inadmissible).
- If no: The evidence may be excluded by the trial judge. However, this is a highly discretionary decision by the trial judge and you should not necessarily stop here. Even if you think the evidence fails Rule 403, you should conduct the rest of your analysis just to cover the possibility that the trial judge might disagree with you.
- 3. Is the evidence propensity evidence (does it use a trait of character or a prior act to show a tendency toward that behavior)? Fed. R. Evid. 404(a).
- If yes: It is admissible. Proof of propensity, when admitted subject to an exception, is generally restricted to reputation and opinion evidence. Specific instances may only be inquired into on cross-examination, Fed. R. Evid. 405(a). However, for sexual predisposition under Fed. R. Evid. 413–414, extrinsic evidence of specific instances is allowed.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6. Prior Statements by Witnesses; Statements by Party-Opponents 14 results (showing 5 best matches)
- If only the first statement were available at the 2014 wrongful-death trial, and that statement constituted the only evidence of the van’s negligence, then the judge would have to grant a judgment as a matter of law in favor of the Defendant. The Plaintiff would have no affirmative evidence to offer. The first out-of-court statement presents no substantive evidence in the Plaintiff’s case; it can only be used to impeach the witness.
- Rule 801(d)(2) requires that the prosecution show the judge, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the foundational requirements for agency, employment, or conspiracy have been met. To meet this burden, the prosecutor may rely on the statement itself as partial evidence of agency, employment, or conspiracy. “Bootstrapping” is where hearsay picks itself up by its own bootstraps—that is to say, where the statement itself is used to prove a necessary preliminary fact controlling the admissibility of the statement. In the context of Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(C)–(E), this means that the judge may use the very statements that are sought to be admitted to decide whether the preliminary requirements of the exemption have been met. For instance, to apply 801(d)(2)(E), the court must first determine whether a conspiracy exists. The out-of-court statement itself may be used to determine the preliminary question of conspiracy. independent evidence of agency, employment, or conspiracy exist.
- The second statement, made at the criminal trial under oath and subject to penalty of perjury at a previous trial, fits within Rule 801(d)(1)(A). It is therefore admissible as substantive evidence and may be offered for its truth. The jury is free to disbelieve David’s current testimony and instead believe his former statement at the criminal trial for drunk driving.
- warnings about her right to remain silent. Additionally, some statements by party-opponents are banned by other evidence rules such as
- Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a statement is admissible if it was made by:
- Open Chapter
Chapter 16. Evidence on Appeal Part 2 16 results (showing 5 best matches)
- • Actually analyze an evidence problem; do not just demonstrate that you can identify the evidence rule the question implicates.
- The following are suggestions about how to prepare for your evidence exam. Obviously, anything your teacher tells you trumps this otherwise good advice.
- • Think about policy and try to put together themes. This may be directly relevant if your exam asks a policy question, but it is helpful even with blackletter doctrine in organizing your ideas and enhancing your understanding of the underpinnings of the evidence rules. Such policies and themes include the following:
- ○ The role of the judge as screener of evidence;
- ○ Rules that express distrust of the jury’s ability to handle evidence;
- Open Chapter
Chapter 13. Burdens and Presumptions 14 results (showing 5 best matches)
- concerns the trial court’s role as screener of evidence. Without prejudging whether the party with the burden of persuasion will ultimately be able to meet that burden, the judge applies a lower standard to determine whether the party has offered sufficient evidence to justify letting a particular claim go forward.
- must convince the trier-of-fact to the appropriate level of certainty that she deserves to win. The burden of persuasion never shifts between the parties, and remains constant throughout the litigation. The plaintiff bears the burden of persuading the fact-finder that her claim is valid and meets the necessary standard of proof. In civil cases, the burden of persuasion is usually a preponderance of the evidence (that is to say, more likely than not), but it can be a higher standard, such as clear and convincing evidence. Concomitantly, the civil defendant carries the burden of persuading the fact-finder that her affirmative defense is valid and meets the necessary standard of proof. In a criminal case, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The party carrying the burden of production must present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a reasonable jury could find for her on that claim or issue. To meet its burden of production, the party must establish the prima facie elements of a claim or defense.
- is a substantive legal rule whereby proof of a designated fact establishes by necessary inference the existence of another fact. You are of course familiar with the presumption of innocence in criminal law. The Federal Rules of Evidence, however, apply only to civil presumptions. (Congress rejected a proposed rule for criminal presumptions.)
- A party seeking to take advantage of a presumption must offer evidence sufficient to meet the burden of production as to each foundational fact.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 14. Authentication 33 results (showing 5 best matches)
- A party must authenticate any tangible thing that she intends to offer into evidence. Whether it is a document, a recording, a gun, a baggie full of cocaine, or a work of art, it must first be authenticated. Both real evidence (items that were actually involved in the events that gave rise to the litigation) and demonstrative evidence (items such as a gun that resembles the gun used in the crime, a map of the accident location, or a chart) must be authenticated.
- lists items that will be admitted into evidence without any outside evidence of authenticity. Examples include the following:
- • Evidence about a telephone conversation, or evidence that a call was made to the number assigned at the time to:
- • Evidence about public records. This includes evidence that a document was filed in a public office as authorized by law, or a purported public record is from the office where items of this kind are kept,
- • Evidence about ancient documents or data compilations. This includes documents and data over twenty years old—as you may remember from the hearsay exception, according to evidence law, if you are over twenty, you are ancient—found where it would be expected to be, in a condition that creates no suspicion about its authenticity,
- Open Chapter
Acknowledgments 1 result
Chapter 10. Privileges 3 results
- Privilege excludes otherwise admissible evidence because the value of the evidence is deemed less important than the preservation of certain rights and social relationships. Many privileges are based on the utilitarian notion that they promote socially valuable communication, especially open communication between a professional and the privilege holder. Privileges can also be understood as respecting the dignity of individuals and preserving personal and professional relationships.
- The privilege is held by and may be waived by the client; however, certain Evidence Rules and Civil Procedure Rules limit the consequences of accidental disclosure. The privilege may also be waived when the holder of the privilege puts privileged material in issue. Testimony by the privilege holder concerning privileged material constitutes waiver.
- • In the event of a disclosure made by mistake, certain Evidence and Civil Procedure Rules may limit the consequences of accidental disclosure.
- Open Chapter
Table of Contents 20 results (showing 5 best matches)
Chapter 12.Judicial Notice 3 results
- Judicial notice is a shortcut in proof that reduces the time and expense of having to prove obvious facts at trial. By taking judicial notice, the court relieves the party offering the evidence of the burden of proving the adjudicative fact. Lawyers use judicial notice to prove facts that are “not subject to reasonable dispute” but are nevertheless difficult or expensive to prove under the evidence rules,
- 1. Does the evidence concern an adjudicative fact?
- Pamela, the Plaintiff in a civil paternity action, alleges that David is the father of her child and demands child support. Pamela offers a properly authenticated lab report analysis of DNA evidence showing that the child and Peter are a match. May the judge take judicial notice of the science behind paternity testing?
- Open Chapter
Chapter 9. Competence 3 results
- The Federal Rules of Evidence Presume Competence
- Deficits in witnesses are generally handled by impeachment, not by prohibiting the testimony entirely. The common law rendered some people, such as the mentally ill, children, and the parties to the lawsuit, incompetent to testify. The modern approach, adopted by the Federal Rules of Evidence, allows such folks to testify as witnesses, but uses impeachment to display the potential problems with their testimony.
- • The Federal Rules of Evidence presume a witness’s competence. Anyone who can communicate and understand the solemnity of the oath is competent to testify, unless proven otherwise.
- Open Chapter
Dedication 1 result
Chapter 8.Confrontation 11 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The court found unpersuasive the attempts to distinguish the type of testimonial evidence in
- If no: The Confrontation Clause does not apply. In civil cases, the rules of evidence alone will control whether the statement is admissible.
- 2. Is the evidence being offered against the accused?
- 9. Is the statement “testimonial,” e.g., would a reasonable person expect that the prosecutor would use it against the accused in a criminal trial? Alternatively, is the statement’s primary purpose to report a crime or collect evidence?
- Note: There is significant disagreement about when an ongoing emergency exists, whose perspective matters (just the declarant’s, or the declarant’s and the listener’s), and how much context should be considered. In cases involving lab reports, the Supreme Court Justices disagree about the status of statements that experts use to form their opinions but do not introduce into evidence.
- Open Chapter
- Publication Date: September 16th, 2016
- ISBN: 9781634606059
- Subject: Evidence
- Series: Acing Series
- Type: Exam Prep
- Description: Acing Evidence offers a succinct, clear, and user-friendly review of federal evidence law. Providing many helpful examples and employing checklists at the end of every chapter, Acing Evidence presents an organized way to analyze evidence problems and spot hidden issues. This book is invaluable for reviewing evidence, preparing for the bar exam, and assessing evidence at trial. The second edition adds new examples, reflects rule changes, and expands the discussion of confrontation.
