If I could turn your attention to ...
Held: Experts don't need to include every basic underlying fact, just the ones immediately relevant to their conclusion.
What is Yu-Oh Industries v. Beckstein Alekri Inc.?
OC: Your honour can't consider other witnesses' statements when determining the admissibility of this exhibit, because those statements are hearsay.
Dr. Hartley (aka the best doctor ever): I found that Mr. Armstrong inhaled 1.2-2.1 grams of oxalic acid.
No objection! Dr. Hartley is perfect.
(JK. Could use Yu-Oh Industries, or 702)
(on cross examination) OC: Kane Software states that an expert may not testify to conclusions outside their report.
Experts may give opinion not in their report if asked on CX.
"If he got hurt ... well. That was also on him"
Yup. She said that.
Held: For hearsay purposes, police officers, prosecutors, etc. are not an "opposing party" of a criminal defendant.
What is State v. Arnzen?
OC: Your honour, even though this hearsay has no relevance to the expert's conclusion, they can still testify to it under 705.
Richards v. Mississippi BBQ
Quade: I convinced Charlie Martin to compete.
What is speculation?
In pretrial: In State v. Shepard, the subsequent intervening actions of a third party were ruled inadmissible, because the defendant's actions were reckless regardless of whether a third party intervened.
State v. Shepard states that in some cases the subsequent actions of a third party may impact whether the defendant knew or should have known that their own actions could result in death.
Q: You gave this oxalic acid to Rob Armstrong?
A: Uh. Um ... I ... ah. Yes. I did.
She definitely said that.
Held: In a criminal trial, it is improper for an attorney to comment on sentencing or discuss potential penalties.
What is State v. Deters?
OC: Detective Rivera can't testify that his procedure was reliable, because that is an opinion, and is inadmissible under rule 701.
Jeffries v. Polk County Police Department
Doos: The producers bribed us!!!
404
OC: Evidence that production approved Ms. Martin's sabotage is irrelevant, pursuant to State v. Bernardi, which states that just because someone told you to do something, doesn't mean that you're not responsible for your own actions.
State v. Bernardi merely states that such evidence is not dispositive, not that it is irrelevant to determining mens rea.
Q:You realize that you were adding oxalic acid to the only source of oxygen that Rob would have underwater, right?
A: Yeah. That was the whole point.
She didn't say that, but totally could have.
Held: It is not "burden-shifting" for a prosecutor to point out that a defendant has not produced documents or other evidence to support their theory, as long as the prosecutor doesn't suggest the defendant had an affirmative duty to produce that evidence.
What is State v. Chatterjee?
OC: Dr. Hartley can't testify to the amount of oxalic acid Mr. Armstrong inhaled, because pursuant to Tarot Readers, we don't know that the specific method Dr. Hartley used to determine this amount has a known error rate, or has been peer reviewed.
What is Omnidirectional Solutions v. Little Bird Word LLC?
Rivera: Charlie Martin lied about whether she was near the radios.
Speculation
OC: Evidence that Ms. Martin didn't read all of the safety instructions is irrelevant, pursuant to State v. Narsipur, which states that forseeability is an objective standard - whether the defendant was negligent doesn't change whether the death was foreseeable.
State v. Narsipur states that such evidence is irrelevant when determining causation. However, it explicitly says they are relevant in determining their mental state.
"But I wanted him to not finish the challenge. One way or another"
Yup. That's our defendant!
Held: Under 404, evidence of a defendant's general good character or law-abiding nature is not admissible. Instead, needs to be evidence of a pertinent trait.
What is State v. Nakajima?
OC: This witness can't testify to what they saw in the recording of Mr. Armstrong's dive, because that's an out of court document.
What is State v. Smarda?
Lin: Charlie told me she never wanted to hurt Mr. Armstrong.
Hearsay
OC: Pursuant to State v. Lazares, defendants have a right not to speak to police officers. Therefore, opposing counsel can't ask about what Ms. Martin chose not to say in her interrogation.
State v. Lazares deals with when defendants choose to terminate interviews or not answer questions. That doesn't mean we can't ask Ms. Martin about whether she chose to volunteer relevant information, given that she did speak with police and chose to answer their questions.
"Im going to stop him for the next one. I dont care what it takes. We can talk about whatever pathetic sabotages were planned by the network."
No thankfully she did not say that!