Grab Bag
Describe rule 403.
What is excluding evidence because it is more prejudicial than probative, confuses the issues, wastes the jury's time, cases an undue delay, misleads the jury, or is cumulative?
The rule stating that testimony must be sufficient to show that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter.
What is rule 602?
Explain rule 803(3).
What is a statement that describes a then-existing emotional, mental, or physical condition?
State of Mind: motive, intent, plan
Mental Condition: feelings
Physical Condition: body pain, health
Statements cannot describe a belief or a memory.
On direct examination, opposing counsel asks "You found a bloody knife in the defendant's car, correct?"
What is yes, object to leading (rule 611)?
Opposing counsel asks Sawyer Shaw, "You fired Riley Winter on December 23, and you never read Riley's performance evaluations beforehand?"
What is a compound question?
Describe rule 803(1).
What is the rule explaining that one exception to hearsay is a statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it? (Present sense impression)
Explain rule 803(6).
Exception to hearsay because the document is a regularly conducted activity. Most often used with business records. There are three prongs to prove. Someone has to know the information, it must be a part of that person's job duties to create the document in question, and the document must be used repeatedly in the course of business. These prongs can be proved by witness testimony or a custodial document.
An officer testifies that children were running toward him shouting “they’re shooting at those boys in that car over there.”
What is 803(2), excited utterance, or 803(1), present sense impression? (Will accept either answer)
A hearsay objection for the question, "can you call me and tell me what you want for dinner?"
What is no, because questions have no inherent truth value?
Opposing counsel asks Bobbie Lin on direct examination "Could you tell us about the first week you worked for Sawyer Shaw?"
What is calls for narrative response?
During Adrian Edwards' direct (so you're on the defense), you try to enter exhibit 10. Opposing counsel objects to hearsay. Which rule (under 801) would you use to respond to the objection, and how would you phrase your response?
What is rule 801(d)(2)(A)?
Your honor, this is not hearsay under rule 801(d)(2)(A). Riley Winter wrote this article, and Riley Winter is our party opponent in today's case.
The rule about statements made by the opposing party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of their relationship.
What is rule 801(d)(2)(D)?
During a vehicular homicide case, a witness who was with the defendant (Jenny) at a bar earlier that evening testifies. On the stand, she testifies while at the bar, she said, "Look at Jenny stagger. She's so wasted right now."
What is an exception to hearsay under rule 803(1), present sense impression?
In a hit-and-run case where the incident happened in 2016, opposing counsel begins talking about the accused's driving record from 2019.
What is yes, object to relevance?
Opposing counsel asks Austin Perez a question. It's been 30 seconds since Austin Perez started their answer, and it doesn't appear that they will stop talking any time soon.
What is a narrative response?
The definition of hearsay as well as the two types of sentences that cannot be hearsay because of this definition.
What is an out of court statement used for the truth of the matter asserted? What are questions and commands?
The first page of exhibit 22, titled Declaration of Olivia Wolbert, allows exhibit 22 to be entered under rule 803(6) because of this reason.
What is this is a certified document that meets prongs 803(6)(A) through 803(6)(C)?
Opposing counsel is directing Sawyer Shaw. Sawyer says, "When I asked Austin Perez about the decision to fire Riley Winter, Austin said, 'I think we should give Riley another chance.'" You object to hearsay, and opposing counsel says that the quote is an exception to hearsay under 803(3). Why does this quote NOT meet that exception?
Austin Perez's statement is a statement of belief, which is not covered by 803(3). Austin Perez believes that TBD should give Riley Winter another chance.
During the direct examination of Riley Winter, opposing counsel enters exhibit 3 and asks Riley Winter to read the document in its entirety while on the stand.
What is yes, object to 403 as to needlessly cumulative (or wasting the jury's time)?
On cross examination, opposing counsel asks Kirby Doolittle "You agreed to testify after TBD offered you a job?" Kirby Doolittle answers. A few questions later, opposing counsel asks "TBD offered you a job before you agreed to testify?"
What is asked and answered?
On cross examination, the defense attorney asks Bobbie Lin, "Why do you think Riley Winter was fired?" Do you object? If so, what is your objection? How would you word your objection?
Do not object.
You are not supposed to ask open-ended questions on cross. However, if an attorney messes up and asks as open ended question, trust that your witness will answer it in a way that is beneficial to your case. Here, you should trust Bobbie Lin's answer will be something like "Riley Winter was fired because of their age."
You want to enter exhibit 18 during Bobbie Lin's direct. What three questions do you need to ask Bobbie before entering the exhibit in order for the exhibit to qualify as a hearsay exception under rule 803(6)?
Something to the effect of:
1. Did you have the information necessary to create this document?
2. Is it a part of your job duties to create this document?
3. Does TBD use documents like these regularly?
You are directing Adrian Edwards. Adrian Edwards testified about how when they read Riley Winter's article about TURNTable, they became extremely upset. Adrian then says, "I told Sawyer Shaw 'there had better be consequences for anyone responsible.'" Opposing counsel objects to hearsay. Which 803 rule would you use to respond? How would you craft your response?
What is rule 803(2)?
Your honor, this is an exception to hearsay as it is an excited utterance. Adrian Edwards was upset after reading an article slandering their company, and they made this statement while under the influence of that strong emotion.
Austin Perez testifies, "It's obvious that Sawyer Shaw was ageist. He must have hated old people."
What is yes, object to rule 602, lack of personal knowledge?
On cross examination, opposing counsel asks Austin Perez "In Riley Winter's performance evaluation, you overstated their weaknesses and understated their strengths?"
What is a compound question?