Character Evidence
These are the two (or three) methods of proving character evidence.
Reputation or Opinion and Specific Instances of Conduct
These are three examples of objections of form and their meanings.
Compound, Argumentative, Badgering, Leading, etc.
This is the specific rule that states:
"If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is rationally based on the witness's perception."
701(a)
This is the Rule Number for the Exception to the Rule Against Hearsay: Then-Existing, Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition
803(3)
This is the Rule associated with a "Best Evidence" Objection
Rule 1002: Requirement of the Original
This is when evidence for a witness's truthful (NOT UNTRUTHFUL) character is admissible pursuant to Rule 608.
Only after the witness's character for truthfulness has been attacked.
These are the two prongs of the test of relevance in Rule 401.
(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.
Experts are allowed to use otherwise inadmissible evidence to come to their conclusions according to this rule.
703
This is the Rule stating statements of a co-conspirator of the party opponent are not Hearsay.
801(d)(2)(e)
This rule states that a part can't just put half of a statement or document onto the record.
106 (Rule of Completeness)
For any crime (that happened less than 10 years ago) regardless of punishment, a criminal conviction must be admitted if...
It involved a dishonest act or false statement.
This is the objection and Rule Number for when a redirect examination goes into things not covered on cross.
"Outside the Scope of Cross" 611(b)
If you are objecting under Rule 701, these are the two objections you could be making.
Improper Lay Opinion or Speculation
Can a nonverbal act like nodding or shaking your head be considered a hearsay statement? Which rule number clarifies this?
Yes. A nonverbal act can still constitute an assertion pursuant to 801(a)
What rule allows this?
901(b)(5): Opinion about a Voice
This type of evidence is not to be admitted to prove a witness's character for untruthfulness or truthfulness.
Extrinsic evidence besides a prior conviction.
Why is the signpost "Let's talk about why you're here today." objectionable? How do we make this signpost not objectionable?
Attorney Testifying— Attorney is making an assertion not in evidence.
"Let's talk about why you might be here today." is now fine.
Semantic but important.
These are the four prongs that qualify a witness to give expert testimony pursuant to Rule 702.
(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.
Statement from Exhibit 19: "'You need to be thinking four steps ahead. It’s chess, not checkers out there,' De la Porta quipped."
What are the two levels of hearsay in this statement and what rule governs Hearsay within Hearsay
Rule 805
"De la Porta quipped": statement by article author asserting that De la Porta said it and how.
"You need to be thinking four steps ahead. It's chess not checkers out there.": Statement by DLP asserts truth that "it's chess not checkers out there"
Is the Prosecution allowed to have Sands testify that De la Porta paid her medical bills as evidence that she is guilty? Why or Why Not?
No.
Rule 409: Offers to Pay Medical and Similar Expenses
Evidence of furnishing, promising to pay, or offering to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses resulting from an injury is not admissible to prove liability for the injury.
This rule states the exceptions to the rule against character evidence for the defendant or victim in a criminal case.
404(a)(2)
These are all the reasons for exclusions of relevant evidence under 403. Hint: There are 6.
unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence
What is the key difference between Rule 602 and 701? Provide an example of testimony that violates 602, but not 701, and an example of testimony that violates 701, but not 602.
Rule 602 applies to Fact Testimony, Rule 701 applies to Opinion Testimony.
Your witness gets impeached on cross by contradiction, but you know there is a statement before that in the affidavit where the witness said exactly what they had just gotten impeached for.
Are you allowed to give the witness their affidavit on redirect and have them read their previous consistent statement to rebut the impeachment? Whic rule number allows/prohibits this?
This IS ALLOWED pursuant to 801d(1)(B)
"The declarant testifies and is subject to cross- examination about a prior statement, and the statement is consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated it"
This Rule states Newpaper and Periodical Articles are self-authenticating
902(6)