Experts
Davis V. Addams
rial 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.
America’s Best Cookie v. International House of Waffles
The Court recognizes that practices differ in other jurisdictions. But in Midlands, the definition of “hearsay” includes out-of-court statements by a witness who is on the stand or by another person who has or will be testifying in a particular trial.
Midlands Television Studios v. Kosack
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.
Ginger v. Heisman
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 all the exhibits pre-admitted under stipulation 6
what is 6,7,10,11,12,18,20,21,37,42
Tarot Readers Association of Midlands v. Merrell Dow
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.
Chambers v. By the Book Publishing, Ltd.
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.
Snead v. Stone
Because interrogatory responses are created and exchanged during discovery, they are not automatically part of the trial record. Instead, as with a substantive stipulation, a party wishing to make an interrogatory answer part of the trial record must seek the court’s leave to read that interrogatory question and response (or part of question and response) onto the record.
Shakur v. Wallace
It is up to the fact finder to determine the credibility of each witness’s testimony. A fact finder, whether jury or judge, may choose to credit all, some, or none of a witness’s testimony and may credit one part of a witness’s testimony without crediting others. At all times, the fact finder may consider the witness’s interest in the outcome of the case. However, it is not appropriate for a testifying witness to determine the credibility or otherwise opine on the credibility of another witness. Such a determination or opinion by a testifying witness is not relevant under the MRE.
If Dr. Edmund is not testifying, what exhibit is pre-admitted and what is the stipulation
19b and stipulation 13
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.
Dolly v. Ringo
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.
Cain v. Abel
Interrogatories are written questions and answers exchanged by the parties during the discovery stage of a civil case. One party sends a list of questions, and the other party answers them. Since such discovery responses are statements that “the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true” (MRE 801(d)(2)(B)), those answers are not hearsay if offered by the opposing party, though other evidentiary objections may still apply.
Jeff v. Wario’s Toolkit
Absent some special rule to the contrary, a plaintiff in a civil case must establish all the elements of their claim by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., establish that all elements are more likely than not true).
What stipulation states there is no chain of custody problems
Kane Software Co. v. Mars Investigations
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. For example, an expert may not testify on direct or redirect examination that they formed a conclusion based on evidence that came out during trial that the expert did not previously review. However, if an expert is asked during cross examination about matters not contained in their report, the expert may freely answer the question as long as the answer is responsive.
Rogers v. Mars
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.
Rosen v. Groff
In Midlands, substantive objections are not appropriate during a deposition. As a result, failure to object to a question during a deposition does not preclude a party from objecting to the deposition (or an excerpt under Midlands Television Studios v. Kosack) being offered at trial.
Maloney v. Soucar
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.
Following Avery Bancroft’s death, the Australian Federal Police searched the Platinum Section of Train 1985 of the Mid-Riverina Express. They found the following Exhibits in Cabin 1: 6, 16b, 20, 22, 30, 34b, 35, and 37. They found Exhibits 16c, 34a, and 42 in Cabin 3. They found Exhibit 31 in a trash can in the lounge.
Yu-Oh Industries v. Beckstein Alekri Inc.
Appellants argue that the trial court improperly excluded testimony from the defense expert on the basis that certain testimony amounted to “trial by ambush” under the precedent set by Kane Software Co. v. Mars Investigations (1998). Appellants admit that the defense expert was attempting to testify to certain underlying facts that were not expressly disclosed in the expert report and that such facts contributed to the expert’s conclusions, but they argue that the conclusion itself was disclosed and thus it was unnecessary for every underlying detail to be disclosed. We hold that the Appellants’ argument has merit. 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. Such requirements would lead to expert reports that are hundreds, if not thousands, of pages long. For example, an accident reconstructionist need not explain Newton’s laws of motion in their report. However, if an expert wishes to testify that they believe the indentations on a vehicle’s door means that the vehicle collided with a streetlamp at 45 MPH, then measurements, equations, and other relevant facts that form the basis for that specific conclusion must be disclosed in the expert’s report. Reversed and remanded to the trial court for reconsideration consistent with this decision.
Petrillo v. Martini and Peony Estates (2021)
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.
Pathan v. White
Depositions are distinct from affidavits. Whereas witnesses are required to include all relevant and pertinent information in an affidavit, the only obligation a witness has during a deposition (other than telling the truth) is to answer the questions posed to the witness. If a deposing attorney fails to ask a relevant question during the deposition, it is not the witness’s obligation to provide that information.
Borealis Industries v. Ellen Nora Hobbs
Plaintiff sued defendant for computer fraud, claiming that she initiated a malware attack that ultimately resulted in the loss of millions of dollars. At trial, defendant argued that she was not liable because someone else conducted the malware attack. Plaintiff argues that defendant should have been precluded from raising an alternative suspect argument because defendant did not plead any affirmative defenses. Held: Defendant does not need to plead an affirmative defense to argue an alternative suspect theory. Defenses and affirmative defenses are different. Whereas affirmative defenses involve admitting the acts in question but claiming a legal justification for those acts, pure defenses deny committing the acts entirely. An alternative suspect theory is a pure defense, not an affirmative defense. As a consequence, defendant is free to argue an alternative suspect theory when disputing a claim without needing to raise an affirmative defense.
What does stipulation 17 state
From the end of their respective depositions to the beginning of trial, neither Jordan Nathanson nor Taylor Hopson has seen, heard, or otherwise learned anything that would cause either of them to change the answers they provided to the questions asked during their respective depositions.