Rules Of Evidence
what is rule 801
What type of case is this
civil case / slayer statute
803
exceptions to hearsay
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 is the name of Bancroft's personal assistant
Kirby Doolittle
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.
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.
803(1)
present sense impression
A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.
State v B.F. de la porta
To be inadmissible as hearsay, an out-of-court statement must be (a) an assertion of fact (b) offered to establish the truth of that asserted fact. The statement here contains several assertions of fact—that the investigating agent knew the Defendant was involved; that the Defendant was a mastermind and that the heist was of the sort the Defendant would commit; and that the Defendant would be his. Because the Defense disputed these assertions, it cannot be reasonably argued that any part of the Agent’s statement was offered to prove the truth of the matter(s) asserted. As such, the statement is definitionally not hearsay.
who did doolittle find "shuffling around" in bancrofts room
hopson and doos
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.
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.
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.
what date did edmund see hopson/doos with the "bottle with the banana" in the store
April 23rd
803(2)
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.
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)
What are the 4 prongs of 702
1. 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
2. based on sufficient facts or data
3. the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods
4. the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case
Martinez v. Martinez
Where the plaintiff alleges that the defendant facilitated the death of the decedent, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to establish the identity of the person or persons who worked with the defendant in order to prevail in a Slayer Statute proceeding. So long as the plaintiff establishes the defendant facilitated the death of the decedent, the plaintiff can prevail. That said, evidence of the person or persons who worked with the defendant—including identity and motive—is still nonetheless relevant in a Slayer Statute proceeding.
what time did edmund hear bancroft and taylor yelling at each other
11pm!
401
test for relevance
Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence
the bar is very low
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.
5 alternatives to hearsay
1. Effect on the Listener
2. Notice
3. Question
4. Command
5. Bias
Bearinger v. Rajan
The defendant need not be the decedent’s actual killer in order to be a culpable actor in the death of the decedent. The defendant can also be a culpable actor if they facilitated the death of the decedent. A defendant facilitates the death of the decedent when the defendant knowingly or purposefully aids, abets, commands, counsels, encourages, hires, induces, procures, or solicits another person (or persons) to knowingly or purposefully kill the decedent.
What time did Doolittle find Bancroft dead
5:00am