Rules Of Evidence
602
need for personal knowledge
What type of case is this
civil case / slayer statute
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).
kirby doolittle heard a voice whisper "go away"
OBJECTION: HEARSAY
i object hearsay to the label on the banana extract... how do you get it in?
701
opinion testimony by a lay witness
1) rationally based perception
2) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue
3) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.
Midlands Television Studios v. Kosack (2019)
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.
Tarot Readers Association of Midlands v. Merrell Dow (1994)
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
taylor hopson asking if there is anything stronger in the back, i object to hearsay
i move to enter exhibit 6 (the will), what is your objection
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.
Salter v. Kidwai
A person acts “knowingly” when they do something that they are practically certain will cause a particular outcome. A person acts “purposefully” when they do something with the expectation that their actions will cause a certain result. In a Slayer Statute proceeding where the plaintiff is attempting to establish the defendant knowingly or purposefully killed the decedent, a plaintiff is not required to show the defendant killed the decedent because the defendant wanted to obtain the decedent’s money or property. The Slayer Statute renders people ineligible to inherit because of what they did, not why they did it. That said, a person’s motive (or lack of motive) to take a particular action is likely relevant for other purposes.
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.
I object to 805 to the text messages between TH and KD, what are the two layers of hearsay and how do I fight them?
you want to read a deposition onto the record, what is the caselaw you use and how do you argue it
404
character evidence
(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
What are the 3 different routes the plaintiff can take to prove slayer statue
There are three ways to establish that the defendant was a culpable actor:
(1) the defendant knowingly caused the death of the decedent
(2) the defendant purposefully caused the death of the decedent
(3) the defendant facilitated the death of the decedent.
(Caltry v. Bridgeman)
Jeffries v. Polk County Police Department (2007)
Generally, law enforcement officers are not “experts” subject to MRE 702 or this Court’s holding in Tarot Readers Association of Midlands v. Merrell Dow (1994) and its progeny. However, law enforcement officers may have specialized training, skills, and experience beyond the average citizen as contemplated in MRE 701 and may testify based on such specialized knowledge. Insofar as a law enforcement officer is asked to provide an opinion based on that officer’s general training, skills, and experience as a law enforcement officer (e.g., whether the officer followed standard protocol in collecting evidence), the admissibility thresholds of MRE 702 and Tarot Readers do not apply. Rather, the admissibility of a law enforcement officer’s non-expert opinion is subject to the standards of MRE 701 and any other applicable rule of evidence.
i object hearsay to exhibit 36, Dana Haskin's article
I want to enter the handwritten will of Avery Bancroft (ex. 8), what are you objecting to and how do you argue it
401
relevance
Kane Software Co. v. Mars Investigations
(TRIAL BY AMBUSH)
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. When an objection is made under Kane Software, the trial court should ask the party offering the expert testimony to refer the trial court to where the proposed testimony is contained or otherwise referenced in the expert’s disclosure to ensure that the record is clear.
Filteau v. Wanek (1992)
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.
I object to 702 when Edmund states what the medicine that Bancroft is taking is used for. What is your response.
i am attempting to enter the receipt and someone else objects to LOF, how do you fight it