ROE
401 (with prongs)
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.
702 and prongs
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
Richards v mississippi bbq
Midlands Rule of Evidence 703 does not permit experts to testify or to present a chart in a manner that simply summarizes inadmissible hearsay without first relating that hearsay to some specialized knowledge on the expert’s part. The court must distinguish experts relying on otherwise inadmissible hearsay to form scientific conclusions from conduits who merely repeat what they are told. The testimony of the former is admissible; that of the latter is not. Of course, statements that would otherwise be admissible are not inadmissible simply because they are offered by or through an expert witness. PAGE 7
can the defense use the defendants statements under 801d2a
no bro
feb 1st and april 7
6 things under 403, name 4
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: 1. unfair prejudice, 2. confusing the issues, 3. misleading the jury, 4. undue delay, 5. wasting time, or 6. needlessly presenting cumulative evidence
701 prongs
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 a fact in issue; and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.
Davis v Adams
Trial judges must ensure that any scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant but reliable. In determining reliability, judges should consider only the methods employed and the data relied upon, not the conclusions themselves. The proponent of the evidence has the burden of proving each section of Rule 702 by a preponderance of the evidence. PAGE NUMBER: 7
America’s Best Cookie v. International House of Waffles (2009)
The Court recognizes that practices differ in other jurisdictions. But, in Midlands, the definition of “hearsay” includes out-of-court statements by a witness who is on the stand or by another person who has or will be testifying in a particular trial.
per stip 8 what is robs assigned color
blue
what is 601 and when would we use it
Every person is competent to be a witness unless these rules provide otherwise
Hearsay Within Hearsay: Hearsay within hearsay is not excluded by the rule against hearsay if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the rule.
what rule lets an expert give their conclusion first
Rule 705. Disclosing the Facts or Data Underlying an Expert’s Opinion Unless the court orders otherwise, an expert may state an opinion – and give the reasons for it – without first testifying to the underlying facts or data. But the expert may be required to disclose those facts or data on cross-examination.
does 803(3) cover statements of belief
bro be so fr no
what rule is for party reps
615
703
Bases of an Expert’s Opinion Testimony An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed. If experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject, they need not be admissible for the opinion to be admitted. But if the facts or data would otherwise be inadmissible, the proponent of the opinion may disclose them to the jury only if their probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.
(a) In General – Not Automatically Objectionable. An opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue. (b) Exception. In a criminal case, an expert witness must not state an opinion about whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense. Those matters are for the trier of fact alone.
what case law relates to 702(c)
Tarot Readers Association of Midlands v. Merrell Dow (1994) In assessing reliability under Rule 702(C), judges should consider whether the theory or technique has been or can be tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, whether it has a known error rate, and whether it has gained widespread acceptance within the field. These factors, while relevant, are not necessarily dispositive. For example, lack of publication does not automatically foreclose admission; sometimes well-grounded but innovative theories will not have been published. There is no definitive checklist. Judges must make such assessments based on the totality of the circumstances.
Even tho rivera is the states party rep their statements are NOT protected under 801d2, what case law supports this
Homel v. Arnzen (2015) For purposes of MRE 801(d)(2), police officers, prosecutors, informants, and others working with law enforcement officials are not an “opposing party” of a criminal defendant.
what stip is pre admitted exhibits
11
if a statement is a Record of a Regularly Conducted Activity is it hearsay?
YES BRO
what rule allows us to sometimes use Rob Armstrong's statements?
804
state v richardson
It was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to allow the forensic pathologist to testify to the cause and manner of death even though the pathologist was not tendered as an expert prior to providing her testimony. Unlike other jurisdictions, Midlands does not require a party to “tender an expert” before eliciting an expert opinion. Whether MRE 702 foundational requirements have been satisfied is an evidentiary determination that rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. page 7
State v. Smarda (2005)
A witness testifying to their own recollection of what they saw occur on a video recording cannot be hearsay. Here, the defendant’s description of what she viewed happening (e.g. people’s movements and interactions) during a movie “outtake” video is not hearsay. However, it may be a violation of MRE 802 if a witness testifies to statements they heard or saw on the video depending on whether the statements met the definition of hearsay or if an exception to the hearsay rule applied.
State v. Desiato (2020)
Under traditional common law, a defendant could be found liable for the death of a victim if that victim died within a year and a day from the injury suffered at the hands of the defendant. The idea being that the victim’s cause of death was still directly and proximately caused by the defendant within that timeframe. We see no reason to divert from the common law “year plus one day” framework. Held: In a criminal homicide case, the prosecutor must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant’s volitional act was the direct and foreseeable cause of the victim’s death.