Method or Madness
The FRE allows a witness to give this opinion if it is based on personal perception, helpful to the jury, and not based on specialized knowledge.
Lay Opinion
Courts allow extrinsic evidence to prove this form of impeachment because it demonstrates a witness’s motive to lie rather than simply attacking their general credibility.
Impeachment for bias.
Almost everyone gets to testify under this presumption.
Presumption of competence.
Jurors are generally prohibited from testifying about this stage of the trial.
Jury deliberations.
Crimes involving deceit or false statements fall into this category and are automatically admissible for impeachment.
Crimen falsi crimes.
The Supreme Court held that appellate courts should review trial court decisions admitting or excluding expert testimony under this standard.
Abuse of discretion standard
This evidentiary rule prevents parties from introducing outside evidence solely to contradict a witness about minor facts that have no independent relevance to the case.
The collateral evidence rule.
Before testifying, a witness must give one of these two solemn promises.
Oath or affirmation.
This objection is raised when a lawyer on cross-examination asks about matters that weren’t covered on direct, and the judge has not allowed it.
What is Beyond the Scope
Probative value outweighs prejudicial effect.
Judges must ensure expert testimony satisfies 4 requirements, including helpfulness, sufficient facts or data, reliable methods, and this final requirement.
Reliable application of the method to the facts of the case.
For a prior consistent statement to be admitted to rebut an accusation of recent fabrication under federal law, the statement must satisfy this critical timing requirement.
That the statement was made before the alleged motive to fabricate arose.
If a witness testifies that their roommate told them the light was red, the problem is both hearsay and a lack of this requirement.
Personal knowledge.
Jurors consuming alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine during trial is considered what type of misconduct?
Internal misconduct.
Unlike federal law, California civil cases generally prohibit this type of conviction from being used for impeachment.
Misdemeanor convictions.
Courts applying modern expert evidence standards often limit firearms or fingerprint experts from claiming this type of certainty when the science cannot support it.
That the evidence matches the defendant to the exclusion of all other possible sources.
This doctrine prevents lawyers from introducing evidence to support a witness’s credibility before that credibility has been attacked.
The rule against bolstering.
If a presiding judge is also a material witness to the events in the case, the judge must do this.
Recuse or disqualify themselves.
A jury verdict is difficult to overturn unless a juror makes a clear statement showing that this type of bias was a significant motivating factor in the verdict.
Racial bias or animus.
In California criminal cases, a misdemeanor can be used to impeach a witness only if it meets these two requirements.
Crime of moral turpitude and 352 balancing.
Judges may exclude expert testimony when there is this problem between the underlying data and the expert’s final opinion.
An analytical gap between the data and the conclusion.
Courts permit evidence supporting a witness’s honesty only after the opposing party has attacked the witness in this specific way.
Attacking the witness’s character for truthfulness.
The Supreme Court held that a per se ban on hypnotically refreshed testimony violated this in criminal case.
Defendant’s constitutional right to testify.
The Supreme Court has held that when a judge excessively questions a defendant during trial, it can undermine the appearance of this essential quality of the court.
Judicial neutrality or impartiality.
Under the FRE, a conviction older than 10 years is inadmissible unless these two requirements are met.
Probative value substantially outweighs prejudice, and reasonable written notice given to the other party.