Relevance and Limitations on Admitting Relevant Evidence
Prosecution offers into evidence a text message that indicates that Defendant X was near the store right before the robbery. The text makes it slightly more probable that X committed the robbery.
Evidence is likely admissible per Rule 401, which provides that "evidence is relevant if: (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"
On cross-examination, Plaintiff X testifies that he checks his car's tire pressure twice a day, to which defense attorney responds with "Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that?" Should court sustain objective that defense attorney's question was argumentative?
Likely yes (does not seek new information from witness) (Florida Mock Trial Rules of Competition 4.18)
In fraud trial, prosecution elicits testimony from several witnesses who testify to Defendant's long history of dishonesty. The defense objects. How should the court rule?
Objection sustained (Rule 404(a)(1): 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.)
Defendant X is on trial for murder. Prosecution calls Witness Y, who testifies that Z told him that X committed the murder. Defense objects. How should the court rule?
Objection sustained. This is textbook hearsay, meaning a statement that (1) the declarant [Z] does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.)
Defendant X is on trial for murder. Prosecution calls Witness Y, who testifies he was told about the murder by Z, who witnessed it personally, and then immediately called Y to describe it. Defense objects. How should the court rule?
Objection overruled (Rule 803(1), Present Sense Impression Exception: a statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.)
At X's money laundering trial, the defendant offers into evidence X's "Perfect Attendance" award from his senior year of high school (on basis that it makes less likely that X committed money laundering)
Inadmissible under Rule 401
In robbery trial, prosecution offers evidence that three years prior to alleged robbery, Defendant X was convicted in connection with a separate robbery. Defendant objects. How should the court rule?
Objection sustained (Rule 404(b)(1): Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.)
Defendant A is on trial for murder. On direct, A testifies that he acted in self-defense, explaining that he was in fear of the victim, C, because B told him (A) that C was planning to murder A. Prosecution objects. How should the court rule?
Objection overruled (A's testimony not intended to prove that C was planning to murder him, but that he thought C was planning to murder him).
Defendant X is on trial for murder. Prosecution calls Witness Y, who testifies he was told about the murder by Z, who witnessed the murder, and then one hour later, calls Y and immediately screams "OH MY GOD OH MY GOD OH MY GOD, X *KILLED* SOMEBODY!!!!!" Defense objects. How should the court rule?
Objection overruled (Rule 803(2), Excited Utterance exception: A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.)
At X's murder trial, prosecution and defense stipulate that Y died from stab wounds. Prosecution nevertheless offers into evidence an extremely graphic autopsy photo. The photo is so graphic that it's likely to make the jury find X guilty.
Evidence should likely be excluded under Rule 403, which provides as follows: "The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence."
On direct examination, plaintiff's attorney asks Witness X the following question: "You think your stuffed animals come alive while you're sleeping and hold elaborate square dances, don't you?" Defendant objects to the form of the question. How should the court rule?
Objection sustained (no leading questions on direct; Rule of Evidence 611(c))
In robbery trial, prosecution offers evidence that three years prior to alleged robbery, Defendant X dressed up as disgraced former President Nixon to rob an ice cream parlor. Defense objects. Prosecution counters that the evidence should be admitted because the robber in the current trial also dressed up as disgraced former president Richard Nixon (as opposed to arguing that it should be admitted because it shows that X has a propensity for robbery). How should the court rule?
Objection overruled (Rule 404(b)(2): Evidence of defendant's crime, wrong, or other act may be admissible for another purpose — i.e., a purpose other than proving they have a propensity for committing the crime they've been charged with such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.)
Defendant X is on trial for murder. Prosecution calls Witness Y, who testifies that X admitted to her committed the murder. Defense objects. How should the court rule?
Objection overruled (801(d)(2): Statements by an opposing party don't qualify as hearsay, even if the statement otherwise meets all the elements of a hearsay statement)
Defendant X is on trial for murder. Prosecution calls Witness Y, who testifies he was told about the murder by Z, who witnessed the murder, and then, having somewhat recovered a day later, calls Y and describes the murder to him. Defense objects. How should the court rule?
Objection sustained (doesn't meet either Present Sense Impression or Excited Utterance exceptions)
To show motive, the prosecution introduces proof that the defendant argued with the victim two years earlier. The evidence is relevant, but might possibly prejudice the jury against the jury defendant.
Evidence unlikely to be excluded under Rule 403 (probative value not "substantially outweighed" by risk of prejudice).
On direct examination, plaintiff's attorney asks witness the following question: "Isn't it true that you're frightened of your stuffed animals, and moreover, that you sleep with a baseball bat under your bed to protect yourself from them?" Defendant objects to the form of the question. How should the court rule?
Objection sustained (compound question, Rules 403 and/or 611)
In X's robbery trial, the defense attacks prosecution's Eyewitness Y character for truthfulness through character witnesses that testify to Y's reputation for dishonesty. Prosecution objects. How should the court rule?
Objection overruled (Rule 608(a): A witness’s credibility may be attacked or supported by testimony about the witness’s reputation for having a character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or by testimony in the form of an opinion about that character. But evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the witness’s character for truthfulness has been attacked.)
X testifies that her favorite fictional character is Bugs Bunny. On cross, opposing attorney introduces a statement from X’s deposition, in which she (X) said that her favorite fictional character is in fact Mickey Mouse. Can the statement from the deposition be introduced as substantive evidence?
Yes (Rule 801(d)(1)(a): a statement isn't hearsay if it's inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony and was given under penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition)
Defendant X is on trial for murder. Prosecution offers into evidence a journal entry written shortly after the murder by Eyewitness Y, describing it in great detail. The defense objects, arguing that Y is available to testify in person. How should the court rule?
Objection sustained (Assuming that Y recalls the event well enough to testify fully and accurately in-person, the journal entry does not meet the requirements for the Recorded Recollection exception codified by Rule 803(5))
X is charged with arson. At trial, the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence that three days before he allegedly committed the arson, X purchased a new lighter and two scented candles. The defense objects that this evidence is irrelevant, specifically noting the purchase of the candles. How should the court rule?
Evidence is likely relevant under Rule 401 (even if only barely)
What's the difference between objecting on basis of Lack of Foundation for Personal Knowledge (Rule 602) and objecting on basis of Speculation (Rule 602 or Rule 701, depending on the substance of the testimony)?
"Testimony lacks foundation for personal knowledge when counsel has not established that the witness knows the answer. Testimony is speculative when we know the witness doesn't know the answer. A lack of foundation problem can be cured by laying more foundation. Speculation cannot be cured; it's just inadmissible" (Nelmark and Bernstein 214)).
In X's robbery trial, the defense attacks prosecution's Eyewitness Y through offering evidence of Y's previous conviction for forgery (creating or altering a document with intent to defraud). Prosecution objects. How should the court rule?
Objection overruled (Rule 609(a)(2): "for any crime regardless of the punishment, the evidence [i.e., of criminal conviction used to attack truthfulness] must be admitted if the court can readily determine that establishing the elements of the crime required proving — or the witness’s admitting — a dishonest act or false statement.")
At trial, X testifies that her favorite fictional character is Bugs Bunny. On cross examination, the opposing attorney wants to introduce a tape recording of a conversation between X and Y, in which X said that her favorite fictional character is in fact Mickey Mouse. Both parties agree that the tape recording is authentic. Can this statement be introduced as substantive evidence?
No (Doesn't meet 801(d)(1)(a) criteria for statements that are not hearsay: the tape recorded statement wasn't given under penalty of perjury)
Defendant X is on trial for murder. In support of X's self-defense claim, the defense calls Witness Y, who testifies that the victim, Z, described to her (Y) at great length a detailed plan to kill X. Prosecution objects. How should the court rule?
Objection likely overruled (Rule 803(3), Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition Exception: A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) or emotional, sensory, or physical condition (such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the validity or terms of the declarant’s will.)