Guess That Objection!
On direct examination, the attorney asks "is it true that you saw the defendant and their father in the dining car cabin on April 24th?"
Leading Question!
Argue a correct hearsay response for Harley Kim overhearing Taylor Hopson say "
you know what we do to rats"
1. Party Opponent exception to Hearsay, as the Plaintiff Taylor Hopson is our Party Opponent and their statements are admissible
OR
2. Plan intent motive, Taylor Hopson the declarant is explaining what they intend to do to rats.
the attorney asks the witnesses "what time did you see the defendant"
the witness answers" I saw the defendant at 6 o'clock when I went to get my hair dryer from my room. I had straightened my hair before dinner and it was starting to get frizzy. I figured I would run down to my cabin an get my straightener again to try and fix my hair before dinner. My hair ended up still being frizzy after I straightened it for the second time."
What should you object
Narrative!
This rule states a "“Statement” means a person’s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion."
Rule 801(a), refers to a statement being Hearsay
How can Shannon Shahid's text messages be an admissible piece of evidence for the defense?
1. Shannon Shahid is the defense's Party Opponent and the statements made by a party opponent are admissible
"Could you the members of the jury what happened during the dinner on April 24th and how you noticed the defendant was acting" fighting with her father
Compound
Under case law Ginger v. Heisman (2015) "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. "
Because of this case law the text message from an unlabled number, on an unlabeled phone, found on the floor of the student union is admissible into evidence
- not reasonable, not enough evidence to go for a preponderance of evidence
If an expert witness is taking the stand and you think their qualifications aren't good enough to testify?
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;
*possibly even 702D- cant reliably apply a method they don't know
"BLANK is not excluded by the rule against hearsay if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the rule."
805, Hearsay Within Hearsay
As a method of proving character, Evidence of a BLANK may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the BLANK practice
hint! If you can lay the foundation, this is a permitted use of character evidence
habit, routine
Facts:
- Kelly Doos is testifying on the stand,
- They say they knew Alex Silva was friendly from her past job as a fire-fighter.
- they continue testifying about what they saw on the train and nothing to do with Alex Silva
- Lack of Foundation
Objection! Under Case law zomerfeld v noto, when evaluating the admissibility of evidence, a trial court is permitted to rely on both admissible and inadmissible evidence. The use of underlying inadmissible evidence does not make that inadmissible evidence admissible. Previous upheld examples of this in Midlands include using character evidence to make a ruling on hearsay exceptions, using hearsay to make a ruling on character evidence, and using hearsay to decide whether an expert has adequate foundation to testify.
Based on this the statement the character witnesses statement on the stand is automatically admissible.
- the case law states - the use of underlying inadmissible evidence does not make that inadmissible evidence admissible.
- it is not automatically admissible because the case law is cited, it can be used to make a rulling and in that case this inadmissible hearsay should not be admissible
On Re-cross if the attorney brings up something you did not bring up during your re-direct, you should object
Out of Scope
under this rule, [from this witness] the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods;
702C, testimony by expert witnesses
What are the prohibited uses of character evidence under rule 404?
404(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.
propensity, conformity and accordance with
A jewelry shop owner writes down by hand the purchases made by their customers each day. At the end of the day the owner takes a picture of her purchases and posts them on Facebook. The purchase list are time stamped and have he location of her jewelry shop on them. When trying to admit this purchase list into evidence against a Hearsay Objection you may argue
803.6 Regularly Conducted Activity
Objection your honor, at this time opposing counsel has elicited a statement from the witness on the stand and they have not laid the foundation.
we can lay the foundation
a witness testifies the following: When I saw Mr. Bancroft dying on April 25th I thought he was having a heart attack, his eating probably contributed to that" what should you object
This rule refers to A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.
803(2), excited utterance
TRUE OR FALSE - Under rule 701 expert testimony, the Rules of Evidence allow Jordan Nathanson as a private investigator to testify to things they observed during their review of the crime scene on the Mid Riverina Express.
FALSE.
Rule 701 refers to lay witnesses if Jordan Nathanson is using specialized knowledge
A witness on the stand is testifying to something she thinks happened because they were not there and did not receive the information from a source allowed under the rule for hearsay
what's the objection being referenced
Need for Personal Knowledge
"Objection, under rule 403 it is more prejudicial than probative to bring up the defendant's financial dependence on her father"
- needs to say substantially more probative than prejudicial
Kelly Doos is testifying about Taylor Hopson's relationship with her father based on things that happened before they started dating Taylor, they believe the relationship was strained because of Taylor's mom's diagnosis but this isn't something Taylor told her, these are just her own personal thoughts.
Need for personal knowledge
acceptable - lack of foundation
This rule number states: A reputation among a person’s associates or in the community concerning the person’s character.
801(21). Reputation Concerning Character exceptions to the rule against Hearsay
identify the steps in impeaching a witness
- grab their affidavit
- ask for permission to approach witness and show opposing counsel
- approach the witness and ask if that is their statement
- is that their name on the top, signature on the back
- identify the lines you need, and ask them to read silently while you read outloud
- ask if you read their statement line correctly