ROE
401 (a & b)
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.
602
Need for Personal Knowledge: A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness’s own testimony. This rule is subject to the provisions of Rule 703, relating to opinion testimony by expert witnesses.
what are the times for everything, statements, directs, crosses, and total tome, in trial
statements- 14 mins, directs- 25 mins, crosses- 25 mins, total 3 hrs.
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.
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).
615 & 603
the constructing swearing in (603) and sequestration of all witnesses (615) excluding party rep of course :)
403
Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons: 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.
what are 4 things that must take place before round, every round.
captains meeting, camera set up, affidavits out, pow-wow, ballots filled out, bench organized, etc.
Yu-Oh Industries v. Beckstein Alekri Inc.
Experts should not be expected to include in their reports every basic scientific fact known to lay people and known realities of their expertise 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.
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.
702
Testimony by Expert Witnesses: A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that: (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’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
701 (a, b, & c)
Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses: If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.
You are an Attorney, when do you stand in trial? (give 5)
During Pre-trial, when directing witness, when crossing witness, when shown exhibits, when giving statements, when making and giving objections.
Lynch v. Miller
The elements of negligence are the following:
(i) the existence of a legal duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff(s);
(ii) the defendant’s breach of that duty;
(iii) harm suffered by the plaintiff(s); and
(iv) proof that the defendant’s breach was the direct and proximate cause of the harm that the plaintiff suffered.
Davis v. Adams
Trial 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.
611 (a, b, & c)
Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence
a. Purpose
b. Scope
c. Leading Questions
805
Hearsay Within Hearsay: Hearsay within hearsay is not excluded by the rule against hearsay if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the rule.
Your witness is getting improperly impeached how do you respond?
object to hearsay on the grounds of improper impeachment, then make your brief, clean, argument :)
Filteau v. Wanek
The application of various rules of evidence sometimes turns on who made a particular statement. As long as the proponent of the statement produces evidence that would permit a reasonable jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a given person made a particular statement, the court must assume for purposes of assessing its admissibility that the statement was made by that person.
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.
801 (a, b, c, d(2)(a))
Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay (a) Statement. “Statement” means a person’s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion. (b) Declarant. “Declarant” means the person who made the statement. (c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” means a statement that: (1) the declarant 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. (d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. (2) An Opposing Party’s Statement. The statement is offered against an opposing party and: (A) was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity;
803 (3, 4)
(3) Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. 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. (4) Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment. A statement that: (A) is made for – and is reasonably pertinent to – medical diagnosis or treatment; and (B) describes medical history; past or present symptoms or sensations; their inception; or their general cause.
Stip. 15
If Landon Norris is not testifying, both sides agree that Norris passed away as a result of a heart attack prior to trial and that Norris’s heart attack and death have no bearing on Norris’s actions on January 1, 2026.
Zomberfeld v. Noto
Pursuant to MRE 104(a), 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. Instead, the Court is merely permitted to consider the underlying inadmissible evidence in order to assess the admissibility of the offered evidence. In a jury trial, the jury may not always be privy to the underlying facts used to determine what evidence is admissible, but the court may hear it. Previously 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.
Pandya v. Schumock
A defendant’s failure to follow its own internal policies and procedures may be used to support a claim for negligence. However, such evidence, although relevant, is not necessarily dispositive. Similarly, evidence that a defendant acted in accordance with its internal policies and procedures in a particular situation may be relevant, but not necessarily dispositive, evidence that a defendant acted reasonably.