Hearsay baby
Identification is a permissible non-hearsay purpose for a statement.
What is Farrant v. Westaway (1994)?
The hearsay rule is only implicated where an out-of-court statement is being used for the truth of the matter asserted. If it only matters whether the out-of-court statement was made (not whether it was true), then the hearsay rule is not implicated.
What is Chambers v. By the Book Publishing?
Generally, law enforcement officers are not “experts” subject to MRE 702 or this Court’s holding in Tarot Readers Association of Midlands v. Merrell Dow (1994) and its progeny. However, law enforcement officers may have specialized training, skills, and experience beyond the average citizen as contemplated in MRE 701 and may testify based on such specialized knowledge. Insofar as a law enforcement officer is asked to provide an opinion based on that officer’s general training, skills, and experience as a law enforcement officer (e.g., whether the officer followed standard protocol in collecting evidence), the admissibility thresholds of MRE 702 and Tarot Readers do not apply. Rather, the admissibility of a law enforcement officer’s non-expert opinion is subject to the standards of MRE 701 and any other applicable rule of evidence.
The holding in Jeffries v. Polk County Police Department (2007) also applies to licensed private investigators and other such non-law enforcement investigators who possess specialized training, skills, and experience. It also applies to other professionals, such as firefighters and nurses.
What is Moore v. Parker-Noblitt?
In lieu of submitting an entire deposition into evidence, a party may instead elect to read excerpts of a deposition onto the record. The excerpt must include the full question(s) asked and the full answer(s) given, unless both sides agree to specific redactions. Any excerpt read onto the record is still subject to the Midlands Rules of Evidence. Should a party elect to read excerpts of a deposition onto the record, that party cannot also submit the deposition itself into evidence.
What is Midlands Television Studios v. Kosack?
In a Slayer Statute proceeding, the decedent is not considered either the plaintiff or the defendant. Therefore, MRE 801(d)(2) does not apply to statements made by the decedent. Statements by the decedent, however, may be otherwise admissible, such as under MRE 803 or MRE 804.
What is Rogers v. Mars?
Unlike most other evidentiary rules, MRE 801(d)(2) may be invoked in only one direction. Under that rule, the plaintiff may offer statements by the defendant, and the defendant may offer statements by the plaintiff. But MRE 801(d)(2) does not permit the plaintiff to offer statements by the plaintiff or the defendant to offer statements by the defendant, even if the opposing party has already elicited out-of-court statements by the party during a preceding examination, subject to MRE 106.
What is Dolly v. Ringo?
Although a murder prosecution and a Slayer Statute proceeding share many parallels, a Slayer Statute proceeding is still ultimately a civil proceeding. Therefore, where rules governing criminal trials differ from rules governing civil trials, the rules governing civil trials apply. For example, MRE 704(b) does not apply to a Slayer Statute proceeding. Indeed, subject to MRE 702, it is appropriate in a Slayer Statute proceeding for an expert to opine on the defendant’s mental state, including whether the defendant fits or does not fit the profile of a culpable actor.
What is Skipper v. Arnold?
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 MRE 702 by a preponderance of the evidence.
What is Davis v. Adams?
The privilege against compulsory self-incrimination protected by both the United States and Midlands Constitutions is inapplicable to civil cases, including Slayer Statute proceedings. A party who is still subject to a risk of prosecution may, of course, decline to testify. But, unlike in criminal cases, the fact finder in a civil case is permitted to draw an adverse inference from a person’s decision not to testify or refusal to do so, and the opposing party is likewise free to comment on such failure.
What is McDonald v. Tiamiyu?
MRE 801(d)(2) governs statements “offered against an opposing party.” This rule does not require the proponent of the evidence to offer the statement “against the party’s interests” in order to qualify as an exemption to hearsay under MRE 801(d)(2)—that language is notably only found in MRE 804(b)(3). If the drafters of the MRE had wanted 801(d)(2) to only apply if the statement was “against the party’s interest,” they would have drafted the rule as such.
Knox v. Revoir
A verbal act is a statement offered to establish something of independent legal significance or effect, rather than the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. Statements which by their existence impose legal responsibilities and grant legal rights upon the parties thereto are verbal acts and are admissible as non-hearsay. For example, a contract executed by both parties would be admissible to establish the terms thereof.
Simpson v. Rose
Midlands does not permit parties to use their experts as weapons in a trial by ambush or unfair surprise. Expert reports that are exchanged prior to trial must contain a complete statement of all opinions the expert will testify to and the basis and reasons for them, the facts or data considered by the expert in forming their opinions, and the expert’s qualifications. Experts are strictly prohibited from testifying on direct and redirect examination about any opinions or conclusions not stated in their report, and such testimony must be excluded upon a timely objection from opposing counsel
What is Kane Software Co. v. Mars Investigations?
Experts should not be expected to include in their reports every basic scientific fact known to lay people and known realities that support their conclusion. Similarly, experts should not be expected to include in their reports every underlying fact from a specific document so long as the experts explicitly disclosed that they relied upon that document in forming their opinions and that document was made available to the other party through discovery
Emails or text messages are properly authenticated when the proponent has produced evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that would allow a reasonable jury to determine the author of the message. The fact that an email, text message, or other electronic communication is listed as coming from an address or number that is either known or purports to belong to a particular person is sufficient to lay foundation that the communication was sent by the person in order to determine its admissibility, at least absent particularized reasons to believe that the communication may have been sent by someone else.
What is Ginger v. Heisman?
Zedell v. Hussain
MRE 803(4) does not apply to statements made by a defendant to a medical or psychological expert retained as part of litigation. The reasoning behind MRE 803(4) is that declarants have an incentive to be truthful to their doctors. However, for doctors retained as part of litigation, no such incentive necessarily exists. Instead, a defendant may have an incentive to tell a doctor retained as part of litigation whatever furthers the defendant’s position, regardless of the truth. And since the reasoning behind MRE 803(4) does not apply, neither does the hearsay exception.
Garmoe v. Evans
MRE 803(6) covers a wide range of records and documents. These can include receipts, emails, memos, and any other such records so long it qualifies as a regularly conducted activity. The key inquiry is whether such records are indeed a regularly conducted activity of the business or organization. For example, if a business or organization regularly creates memos (whether written or via voice), such memos fall under MRE 803(6) (assuming all elements are established).
Tarot Readers Association of Midlands v. Merrell Dow (1994)
In assessing reliability under MRE 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, or 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.
Richards v. Mississippi BBQ
MRE 703 does not permit experts to testify or 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. At the same time, statements that would otherwise be admissible are not inadmissible simply because they are offered by or through an expert witness.
Because a Slayer Statute proceeding is a civil proceeding with a lower burden of proof than a criminal trial, an acquittal, hung jury, or lack of criminal charges against the defendant does not preclude a Slayer Statute proceeding. Additionally, evidence of acquittal, hung jury, or lack of criminal charges against the defendant is inadmissible as misleading under MRE 403 given the differing burdens of proof.
Petrillo v. Martini and Peony Estates
Labels that are placed on commercially sold products for purposes of identifying the product and / or the contents thereof should not be excluded as hearsay. While Midlands has no general residual hearsay exception, commercial labels are relied upon by the public and are subject to legal requirements to ensure their accuracy and completeness. Thus, the reliability concerns that underlie the hearsay rule are not present with labels that are placed on commercially sold products.
Kaplan v. Sikora
A statement that would otherwise be hearsay is admissible against a party if: (1) the declarant is the party’s agent or employee; (2) the statement concerns a matter that is within the scope of the agency or employment relationship; and (3) the statement was made while the agency or employment relationship existed.
Nelson v. Dunn
On rare occasions, an expert may prepare an affidavit or other sworn statement in lieu of an expert report. In such instances, the lack of an expert report does not automatically prohibit the expert from testifying to their opinions and conclusions on direct or redirect examination. Instead, prior to trial, the court should determine whether the affidavit or sworn statement contains a complete statement of all opinions the expert will testify to and the basis and reasons for them, the facts or data considered by the expert in forming their opinions, and the expert’s qualifications. If the affidavit meets these requirements, the expert shall be permitted to testify on direct or redirect examination about any opinions or conclusions stated or incorporated in their affidavit or sworn statement.
Patel v. Rulli
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.
Kissner v. Polk Hospital
Stipulations are pretrial agreements between the parties that certain matters cannot be disputed at trial. Stipulations may be procedural (i.e., pre-numbering of exhibits) or substantive (i.e., agreement to a particular fact in the case). For example, if a stipulation states that a light was green, neither party may proffer or offer witness testimony asserting that the light was red. However, parties are only bound to the text of the stipulation. As another example, if parties stipulate to the pre-admission of an exhibit and nothing else, although the exhibit is in evidence (and cannot be excluded by objection), the parties have not stipulated that the content of the exhibit is correct, and either party may (but is not required to) contest the accuracy of the content of the pre-admitted exhibit. Conversely, if the parties stipulate that all information in an exhibit is true and accurate, neither party may contest the content of said exhibit.