Hearsay
The opposing witness testifies, "I was at the bar, when Joey came up to me. He told me he was going to set the place on fire if the Pats lost."
What is the truth of the matter asserted?
Truth of the matter: Joey will set the bar on fire if the Pats lose.
The opposing witness testifies, "No one in Sam's life respects him. That's why he started doing drugs, now he's a dirty addict."
Object using Rule 403. Make sure to use the correct objection, as well as the phrase associated with it!
More PREJUDICIAL than probative. Saying Sam is a "dirty addict" that "no one" respects is meant to INFLAME THE PASSIONS OF THE JURY.
What's the difference between speculation and lack of personal knowledge?
Speculation: witness doesn't know for sure
I need 1 volunteer!
Relevance
The opposing witness testifies, "I was at the bar, when Joey came up to me. He told me he was going to set the place on fire if the Pats lost."
Object to hearsay.
Truth of the matter: Joey will set the bar on fire if the Pats lose.
Hearsay: this is an out-of-court statement being used to prove that Joey did, in fact, try to set the bar on fire because the Pats lost.
Evidence of which character trait is always admissible under Rule 404?
Dishonesty
What's the "buzz word" you should say when defending against a speculation objection?
It's within the witness' RATIONALLY BASED PERCEPTION
I need 1 volunteer!
Asked and answered
Your witness testifies, "I was at the bar, when Joey came up to me. He told me he was going to set the place on fire if the Pats lost."
Defend against a hearsay objection using 803(3).
Expression of Joey's mental state, that he intends to start a fire if the Patriots lose tonight.
The opposing expert witness testifies, "Humans normally have 11 fingers."
Object using Rule 403. Make sure to use the correct objection!
More MISLEADING than probative. We have it on a GOOD FAITH BASIS that humans do not normally have 11 fingers.
What are the 4 prongs to qualify a witness as an expert?
A) Specialized knowledge (education, training, or experience)
B) Sufficient facts and data
C) Reliable method
D) Method was reliably applied
Ask me if an exhibit has been authenticated under Rule 901. Remember the 3 questions that you need to ask!
1. Do you recognize this exhibit?
2. Is it a fair and accurate copy?
3. Has it been changed or altered in any way?
Your witness testifies, "I was at the bar, when Joey came up to me. He told me he was going to set the place on fire if the Pats lost."
Defend against a hearsay objection using effect on listener/subsequent action.
To argue this, there must be a tangible action on the witness' part as a result of hearing Joey's statement. The witness might have called the police, tried to leave, etc.
The defendant, Hayley, is on trial for aggravated robbery. The opposing witness, a food truck operator, testifies: "I even named a new promotion after her: Hayley's Halal Heist. If you eat 3 pounds of chicken and rice in 30 minutes, you get your meal for free!"
Object using Rule 403. Make sure to use the correct objection!
More PREJUDICIAL than probative. We are in court today to determine whether Hayley is guilty of aggravated robbery. The association of her name with a "heist" will inflame the passions of the jury, swaying them into deciding this case by rhetoric instead of the facts.
You want your witness to say, "Jen looked really happy!" Ask some questions that lay foundation for this.
e.g. "Did you see how Jen looked?" or "What was Jen's expression like?"
The opposing witness testifies about their text messages to their mother on the night of the fire. An authenticated screenshot of these text messages are in evidence as Exhibit 6.
Object that this is not best evidence using Rule 1002.
Exhibit 6 is the best evidence of these text messages. While a witness' personal knowledge of something may be best evidence, the jury would still benefit from having these records in evidence.
Your witness testifies, "I was at the bar, when Joey came up to me. He told me he was going to set the place on fire if the Pats lost."
Defend against a hearsay objection using identification.
For identification, the truth value does not matter. The statement is being used just to identify who is speaking: In this case, that Joey was at the bar.
Your expert witness testifies, "Normally humans have 11 fingers." This "fact" is crucial for your case.
Defend against a more MISLEADING than probative objection. Hint: There are 2 important phrases you should use!
For something to be inadmissible under Rule 403, its misleading value must SUBSTANTIALLY outweigh its probative value.
You should argue that opposing counsel's objection goes to weight, not admissibility. Explain that the jury should be the ones who decide how much weight to place in this evidence.
Using Rob as a witness, lay foundation for the statement: "I think Brady sucks major."
e.g. "Are you familiar with Brady?", "What's your relationship like?"
What's the difference between weight and admissibility? Explain who decides weight and who decides admissibility.
Admissibility: whether something should be heard in court or not (decided by the judge)
Weight: how important a piece of evidence is (decided by the jury)