OBJECTION YOUR HONOUR!
|
|
- Flora Davidson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 OBJECTION YOUR HONOUR! ROBERT S. HARRISON JENNIFER McALEER FASKEN MARTINEAU DuMOULIN LLP THE BASICS What is an Objection? By definition an objection is an interruption. It should only be made when it is warranted. But when it is warranted, it should (and sometimes must) be made. Objections first made in the Court of Appeal to evidence heard at trial as a general matter will be far too late. How To Make An Objection Get on your feet Objection, your Honour ; or I have an objection, your Honour. Then explain the basis of the objection. Do not do it backward, as in That s hearsay! How to argue an objection Arguing an objection is essentially a mini argument on a mini motion. Usually the judge will ask what is the nature of the objection. You will tell her. Unless it is self-evident to the trial judge that your objection is groundless (or unless she agrees with you and wants to hear immediately from examining counsel), you will be asked to state briefly why the question is improper. Examining counsel will then respond and you will be given a reply, if necessary. On occasion, the argument of an objection may be prolonged if a significant point of law has been raised, or a ruling on the objection will have broader implications for the examination of the particular witness or for the balance of the trial. For example, the question objected to may raise larger issues of whether legal privilege has been waived in whole or in part. If you have anticipated having to make certain types of objections (or respond to them), you should come armed with the relevant authorities. Your evidence book should always be at your side.
2 - 2 - OBJECTIONS DURING COUNSEL S OPENING Generally speaking, judges have a low tolerance for counsel being interrupted when making submissions. You will get your turn and, from a tactical perspective, it can be more effective to let opposing counsel become firmly committed to an erroneous position before you get on your feet. So, keep your powder dry, subject to recognizing that there may be exceptions: (I hate to interrupt my friend, but ). For example: 1. Counsel is misleading the trial judge on a crucial evidentiary point, which you can easily correct. 2. Counsel is taking legal positions (causes of action or defences) that are not in the pleadings, and you object because you want to push opposing counsel while on her feet as to whether these new legal positions are seriously being advanced and require a response. OBJECTIONS DURING EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF Excluding the Witness It is very common - and frequently essential - that before you articulate the basis of an objection that the witness be asked (by the trial judge) to leave the courtroom. (This point is just as important for objections during cross-examination). You should not have to telegraph the basis of your objection to the witness, nor should opposing counsel have the opportunity to telegraph the desired response. It is also potentially confusing for a witness to have to listen to lawyers argue about the witness evidence. Leading Question A leading question is one which suggests the answer to the witness, - the most basic leading question is one to which a yes or no answer will suffice. Once the damage is done it is hard to undo it. Learn to recognize the start of a leading question so that you can object before the substance of the question is asked (examples: Would you
3 - 3 - agree ; Am I right that ). Leading questions are acceptable when introducing noncontroversial subjects, but that s it. Be alert. Object early. Try to set the ground rules to stop leading questions from continuing. Asks for Hearsay Objections on this ground are very common. For example, testimony relating a conversation may start out innocently enough, but then may drift into an attempt to prove a fact on the basis that it was relayed to the testifying witness during the conversation. This is hearsay and is inadmissible. Beware the state of mind exception to the rule against the admission of hearsay. That is to say, the evidence is not being tendered to prove the truth of what was said but to demonstrate the declarant s state of mind. No foundation This, perhaps, is an American expression, but if it becomes apparent that a witness is stating facts or reporting observations without any groundwork having been laid to establish that the witness knows what he is talking about, an objection on this basis may be appropriate. But you may want to save this for cross examination. Prior Refusals on Discovery (Rules 31.07(2) and 53.08) Your trial brief should include a list of refusals and, if you did your discovery correctly, you have warned opposing counsel that objection would be made to any attempt to lead evidence on areas refused during the discovery. Calls for an Opinion Witnesses are permitted to express what technically are opinions, but are simply views based on common everyday experience. But questions like How fast was he driving? have buried in them an assumption of expertise that the witness probably does not have.
4 - 4 - Evidence would be self-serving Particularly when credibility is an issue, a question asked of a plaintiff or defendant such as Did you later tell Sam what happened? may be objectionable (there are exceptions) on the grounds that the question seeks to elicit a prior consistent statement. The Question is in the form of a hypothetical Sometimes a question asked of a lay witness like If the ping pong table had been located in a larger room, would it have made any difference to whether you felt safe? may be properly objected to on the basis that the question is hypothetical and therefore will elicit evidence which is speculative, not probative, and prejudicial. This is a difficult area. Questions of this nature potentially may be permitted on the basis they are designed to demonstrate the witness state of mind or that they relate directly to an issue in the litigation. Hypothetical questions are commonly, and properly, asked of an expert. Irrelevant / not probative It would be unusual to object to a single question on the grounds that it seeks to elicit irrelevant evidence, but an objection to a general line of inquiry on this basis is proper, and may be tactically essential to permit you to understand the significance opposing counsel attaches to the evidence. The pleadings define the legal and factual issues in a case and if the evidence tendered does not relate to these issues - even on a generous view - objection on the grounds of irrelevance is appropriate. From the perspective of trial judges, the last thing they want to be doing is taking careful note of testimony that has nothing to do with the issues in the case.
5 - 5 - Prejudicial /Inflammatory Objections on this basis in a civil case are not frequent. However, when, for example, you are defending a breach of contract case and no bad faith is alleged or punitive damages sought, it would be proper to object to questions being asked regarding the effect of the breach of contract on the plaintiff s family. Objecting to the Answer Inadmissible evidence is inadmissible regardless of whether the question was proper. So, for example, if a witness responds with hearsay, it is entirely appropriate to object. Or, if your witness inadvertently wanders into areas protected by legal privilege, an objection would be necessary. OBJECTIONS DURING EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF OF EXPERTS Preliminary Point - Voir Dire Prior to an expert s being permitted to give opinion evidence, the expert must be qualified as such by the trial judge. Frequently, opposing counsel does not object to Mr. James being accepted as an expert qualified to give opinion evidence in the area of., but there are other times when a voir dire is tactically appropriate. In such circumstances, after counsel reviews the expert s qualifications, opposing counsel is entitled to crossexamine on these qualifications prior to the trial judge s ruling, which, in some cases, may limit the areas the expert is permitted to testify about or, potentially, might lead to the expert s evidence being excluded all together. Substance of testimony not included in expert s report (Rules 53.03(3) and 53.08) Counsel should consider filing a supplementary expert report, if she learns before trial that the expert has more to say which cannot reasonably be said to be included in the opinion contained in the expert s existing report. If you have a substantive objection along these lines, you almost certainly should make it immediately. If successful, it can be devastating.
6 - 6 - Outside the expert s expertise An objection based on this ground is entirely proper. A tactical decision must be made as to whether this can be dealt with more effectively on cross examination. Failure to comply with the content requirements of an expert report (Contrary to Rule 53.03(2.1)) Again, a tactical decision must be made whether to save the objection for crossexamination. That decision would potentially depend on how egregious the noncompliance was. For example, if an expert in chief started talking about extensive research that was not disclosed in the expert s report, immediate objection to the admissibility of the evidence would probably be warranted. Opinion Based on Facts not Proven If the expert is the opposing party s last witness, an objection is perhaps warranted on this ground; otherwise it should probably be saved for cross-examination. OBJECTIONS DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION Introduction The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Lyttle, 2004 SCC 5 (CanLII) has said the following about the right of cross examination, and these comments are applicable to a civil case as well: The right of cross-examination must therefore be jealously protected and broadly construed. But it must not be abused. Counsel are bound by the rules of relevancy and barred from resorting to harassment, misrepresentation, repetitiousness or, more generally, from putting questions whose prejudicial effect outweighs their probative value. Gratuitous / Obstructive Interference It is fundamental to our adversarial system that opposing counsel be given a full opportunity to cross examine witnesses and that they should have a fairly free hand in
7 - 7 - doing so. To put it mildly, trial judges look askance at efforts to disrupt a crossexamination. Exclusion of the Witness Perhaps more importantly than with objections during examination-in-chief, it is appropriate to have a witness excluded during the argument of a significant objection - to eliminate the nature of the issue being telegraphed or the witnesses being coached. The question is unintelligible One thing no witness should have to do, especially under cross-examination, is to struggle to understand the question. So a perfectly proper objection in my view, is to say that you have not understood the question so you do not know how the witness can be expected to answer it. The question, as framed, is improper Examples of an objection on this ground are numerous, but whether the objection has real substance will depend entirely on the circumstances. Examples include: (i) (ii) (iii) Answer yes or no, witness? Do you agree that you breached the contract and that your first name is Harry? Why don t you tell me the truth? Objections as to Premise There can be at least four types of objections on this basis: (i) The question imbeds an implicit assumption which is not (at least yet) in the evidence, and which the witness has not commented on one way or the other. (ii) The question misstates the evidence of other witnesses. (iii) The question misstates the evidence the witness has just given. This is a favourite trick of cross-examiners who like to slide in things that the witness has not really said,
8 - 8 - with the objective of pushing the witness along. An objection on this basis however can be difficult. Cross-examining Counsel are entitled to summarize what they believe a witness has said. (iv) The question tells the witness that such and so will be the evidence from another witness, and what does he have to say about that? No counsel can say what future testimony will be - it has not been given yet - and no witness should be bullied in this manner. However, it is proper for cross-examining counsel to pursue this kind of inquiry by putting to the question differently: I expect so and so to say such and such or If so and so says such and such and then to suggest to the witness that this anticipated evidence is true. Prior Inconsistent Statements Participants in courses such as these will be familiar with the protocol required to be followed when cross-examining counsel wants to challenge a party with a contradiction from the party s examination for discovery, or some other form of prior inconsistent statements. The foundation for this protocol can be found in a broader principle enshrined in sections 20 and 21 of the Evidence Act, which provide that the particulars of a prior written - or oral - statement (of any kind) that the cross examiner wants to use to contradict the witness must first be put to the witness. It therefore follows that an improper question on cross examination would be Now witness, you once wrote a letter to my client that puts the lie to everything you have sworn to, isn t that so? This is backward. First, the witness must be shown the letter. The same applies for an oral statement. Some Miscellaneous Objections (i) Not Letting a witness complete an answer. This is a valid objection, as long as it is clear the witness is being responsive.
9 - 9 - (ii) The question elicits privileged information Very few witnesses are attuned to saying What you are asking would require me to tell what I told my lawyer. (iii) Documents not authored by the witness Broadly speaking, a note or memorandum is not proof of anything other than, perhaps, that the note or memorandum was made, unless the person making the note or memorandum testifies. What follows from this is that a question on cross-examination requiring a witness to explain somebody else s note, or to agree his evidence cannot be right because the note is different may well be improper. (iv) Unfounded Suggestions It is not a proper objection that a suggestion put to a witness by counsel on cross examination has no foundation, as long as counsel has a good faith basis for making the suggestion, R. v. Lyttle, supra. Treatment of the Witness Counsel are entitled to vigorously cross-examine opposing witnesses, but abuse of a witness is another thing all together, and trial judges are acutely aware of the difference. Ours is a question and answer system. In other words, counsel on cross-examination are limited to asking questions. That means, for example, that it is not acceptable for counsel to say: Witness, I don t believe you. Counsel s opinion of the witness evidence is first of all irrelevant, and remarks like this can be very intimidating. Worse still, would be this statement by cross-examining counsel: It is obvious that no one in this courtroom believes a word you are saying, including Her Honour. Exaggerated body language designed to have the same effect is just as objectionable. Other objectionable conduct can include shouting at the witness, or standing too close to the witness box (with the purpose of invading the witness space).
10 On a cross-examination, it is not a proper objection that a question has already been answered, but, at some point, enough is enough and the questioning turns into hectoring and requires an objection. OBJECTIONS ARISING ON RE-EXAMINATION Re-examination is a mine field for re-examining counsel, even without objection from opposing counsel, because trial judges are attuned to the limits of a proper reexamination. Typical objections on a re-examination include the following: 1. The question does not arise from something the witness said on cross examination. 2. The question is simply an attempt to repeat evidence already given in chief. 3. The question is leading. 4. The question mis-states the evidence. OBJECTIONS DURING CLOSING This commentary applies to any legal argument by counsel during the trial. The basic rule is: Don t object during opposing counsel s argument. You will get your chance. Trial judges enforce this rule rather vigorously, and it also works for counsel. It is far more effective to let opposing counsel make an argument based on a misunderstanding of the facts, or the law, and then to eviscerate the argument in responding submissions.
11 OBJECTIONS OVERLOAD This paper, and this programme, are about how to make proper objections. Having learned the skill, however, counsel are advised to use it sparingly and well. In this regard, here are a few considerations: 1. If you need to object to a particular line of questioning on admissibility grounds, consider whether a generic objection might be appropriate, to protect your client s position on appeal, but to limit the number of times you need to stand up and down. 2. Consider saving what you may think are clever objections for your cross-examination. 3. Remember that there is good law to the effect that at some point opposing counsel s frequent objections will be seen, if not by the trial judge, then by the Court of Appeal, to have interfered with the other side s right to a fair trial. In that event, you can guess who might have to pay the costs of the first trial personally.
Keith Berkshire Berkshire Law Office, PLLC
Keith Berkshire Berkshire Law Office, PLLC (a) Preserving a Claim of Error. A party may claim error in a ruling to admit or exclude evidence only if the error affects a substantial right of the party and:
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS CINCINNATI INSURANCE CO., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 11-2075-JAR ) EDWARD SERRANO, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
More informationArgumentative Questions (Badgering) Assuming Facts Not in Evidence (Extrapolation) Irrelevant Evidence Hearsay Opinion Lack of Personal Knowledge
Argumentative Questions (Badgering) Assuming Facts Not in Evidence (Extrapolation) Irrelevant Evidence Hearsay Opinion Lack of Personal Knowledge Asked and Answered Outside the Scope of Cross Examination
More informationEVIDENCE, FOUNDATIONS AND OBJECTIONS. Laurie Vahey, Esq.
EVIDENCE, FOUNDATIONS AND OBJECTIONS Laurie Vahey, Esq. KINDS OF EVIDENCE Testimonial Including depositions Make sure you comply with CPLR requirements Experts Real Documentary Demonstrative Visual aid
More informationP R E T R I A L O R D E R
DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER COLORADO Address: City and County Building 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202 COURT USE ONLY Plaintiff(s):, v. Defendant(s):. Case Number: Courtroom: 424 P R
More informationWHEN IS IT PROPER TO OBJECT IN A DEPOSITION OR TO INSTRUCT A WITNESS NOT TO ANSWER? by Mark A. Lienhoop September 4, 1996
WHEN IS IT PROPER TO OBJECT IN A DEPOSITION OR TO INSTRUCT A WITNESS NOT TO ANSWER? by Mark A. Lienhoop September 4, 1996 Some lawyers spend a lot of time in depositions. Despite this it seems many do
More informationTIPS ON OFFERING EVIDENCE RELEVANCE
TIPS ON OFFERING EVIDENCE by Curtis E. Shirley RELEVANCE Indiana Evidence Rule 401: Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
More informationCase Preparation and Presentation: A Guide for Arbitration Advocates and Arbitrators
Case Preparation and Presentation: A Guide for Arbitration Advocates and Arbitrators Jay E. Grenig Rocco M. Scanza Cornell University, ILR School Scheinman Institute on Conflict Resolution JURIS Questions
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiff ) ) ) Defendants RULING RE: ADMISSION OF EXPERT EVIDENCE OF DR. FINKELSTEIN
CITATION: Wray v. Pereira, 2018 ONSC 4621 OSHAWA COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-91778 DATE: 20180801 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Douglas Wray Plaintiff and Rosemary Pereira and Gil Pereira Defendants
More informationEMPIRION EVIDENCE ORDINANCE
EMPIRION EVIDENCE ORDINANCE Recognized Objections I. Authority RULE OBJECTION PAGE 001/002 Outside the Scope of the Ordinance 3 II. Rules of Form RULE OBJECTION PAGE RULE OBJECTION PAGE 003 Leading 3 004
More information14. HEARSAY A. INTRODUCTION
14. HEARSAY A. INTRODUCTION 1. What is the Hearsay Rule? Hearsay is a statement that was made outside of the courtroom, asserts facts, and is now offered in court to prove the truth of the facts asserted.
More informationSIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE
SIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE Table of Contents INTRODUCTION...3 TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Title 1, Chapter 38...3 TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE Article I: General Provisions...4 Article IV: Relevancy
More informationProsecutor Trial Preparation: Preparing the Victim of Human Trafficking to Testify
This guide is a gift of the United States Government PRACTICE GUIDE Prosecutor Trial Preparation: Preparing the Victim of Human Trafficking to Testify AT A GLANCE Intended Audience: Prosecutors working
More informationTRIAL ADVOCACY - FALL 2005
TRIAL ADVOCACY - FALL 2005 Thomas K. Maher 312 W Franklin Street Chapel Hill, N.C. 27516 (O) 929-1043 (H) 933-5674 TKMaher@tkmaherlaw.com General Instructions 1. General Information. The class will meet
More informationWhat happens at a Crown Court trial - The prosecution case.
What happens at a Crown Court trial - The prosecution case. Please note that in the Crown Court you can be represented by either a barrister or a solicitor advocate. Representation is the single most important
More informationTHE VOIR DIRE: AN APPROACH TO RUNNING ONE IN THE LOCAL COURT. Paul Townsend and Lester Fernandez October Introduction
THE VOIR DIRE: AN APPROACH TO RUNNING ONE IN THE LOCAL COURT Paul Townsend and Lester Fernandez October 2006 What is it? Introduction A voir dire is the forum for legal argument on an application to have
More informationCRIMINAL RULES OF THE ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE RULE 1 GENERAL. (2) Dealing with proceedings justly and efficiently includes
CRIMINAL RULES OF THE ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE RULE 1 GENERAL Fundamental objective 1.1 (1) The fundamental objective of these rules is to ensure that proceedings in the Ontario Court of Justice are dealt
More informationP R E T R I A L O R D E R
DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER COLORADO Address: City and County Building 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202 COURT USE ONLY Plaintiff(s):, v. Defendant(s):. Case Number: Courtroom: 424 P R
More informationCRIMINAL PRE-TRIAL BEST PRACTICES
CRIMINAL PRE-TRIAL BEST PRACTICES 20 PRE-TRIAL TOPICS EVERY ATTORNEY SHOULD BE PREPARED TO DISCUSS 48 TH ANNUAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE INSTITUTE August 26, 2013 JUDGE ALAN PENDLETON TRIAL ATTORNEY DEDICATION
More informationWho s who in a Criminal Trial
Mock Criminal Trial Scenario Who s who in a Criminal Trial ACCUSED The accused is the person who is alleged to have committed the criminal offence, and who has been charged with committing it. Before being
More informationJUDGE DENISE POSSE LINDBERG STOCK CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS
JUDGE DENISE POSSE LINDBERG STOCK CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS Stock Opening Instructions Introduction and General Instructions... 1 Summary of the Case... 2 Role of Judge, Jury and Lawyers...
More informationResponse of the Law Society of England and Wales to draft CPS guidance for consultation on 'Speaking to Witnesses at Court'
Response of the Law Society of England and Wales to draft CPS guidance for consultation on 'Speaking to Witnesses at Court' March 2015 The Law Society 2015 Page 1 of 7 Response of the Law Society of England
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 26, 2006 v No. 263852 Marquette Circuit Court MICHAEL ALBERT JARVI, LC No. 03-040571-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationWhat is the Hearing All About?
What is the Hearing All About? Paul Nilsen Wisconsin Department of Transportation Jack Frehafer Pennsylvania Department of Revenue Clark Snelson Utah State Tax Commission IFTA/IRP Annual Audit Workshop
More informationER 904 is Scary - Five Practice Tips for Using and Opposing ER 904 Submissions Robert Dawson
Top of Form Volume: 39-1 Date: Sep 1 2003 TRIAL NEWS WASHINGTON STATE TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION ER 904 is Scary - Five Practice Tips for Using and Opposing ER 904 Submissions Robert Dawson ER 904 was supposed
More informationObjections DEFINITIONS
Objections Objections are an attorney s way of formally notifying a judge that opposing counsel is not following the rules of evidence and requesting the judge to make a ruling on the issue. Objections
More informationExample: (1) Your honor, (2) I object (3) to that question (4) because it is a compound question.
MOCK TRIAL SIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE Criminal trials are conducted using strict rules of evidence to promote fairness. To participate in a Mock Trial, you need to know its rules of evidence. The California
More informationTrials in Supreme Court
Trials in Supreme Court The final stage in an action (a proceeding started with a notice of civil claim) is the trial. The trial is your opportunity to go before a judge and possibly a jury, and tell your
More informationMock Trial. Role Description and Duties: Bailiff/Clerk
Mock Trial Role Description and Duties: Bailiff/Clerk Note: The court clerk and bailiff aid the judge in conduction of the trial. These positions are very important to the team. When evaluating the team
More informationThe Criminal Court System. Law 521 Chapter Seven
The Criminal Court System Law 521 Chapter Seven The Feds make criminal law and procedure. Criminal Court Structure Provinces responsible for organizing, administering, and maintaining the criminal court
More informationNeil Feldscher, CIH, CSP, Esq. and Chip Darius, MA, OHST
Neil Feldscher, CIH, CSP, Esq. and Chip Darius, MA, OHST Types of Witnesses Rules for Expert Witnesses Different Rules, Roles & Expectations Serving as a Consultant or Expert Qualifications Experience
More informationPREPARING FOR AND TAKING DEPOSITIONS IN A PERSONAL INJURY CASE
PREPARING FOR AND TAKING DEPOSITIONS IN A PERSONAL INJURY CASE Jeffrey K. Anderson, Esq. Anderson, Moschetti & Taffany, PLLC 26 Century Hill Drive, Suite 206 Latham, New York 12110 anderson@amtinjurylaw.com
More informationTRIAL PRACTICE No SPRING 2012
TRIAL PRACTICE No. 613 - SPRING 2012 William F. Martson, Jr. Tonkon Torp LLP 888 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600 Portland, OR 97204 (0) 503-802-2005 (C) 503-799-5743 Email: rick.martson(tonkon.com General
More informationFEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE 2018
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE 2018 Effective July 1, 1975, as amended to Dec. 1, 2017 The goal of this 2018 edition of the Federal Rules of Evidence 1 is to provide the practitioner with a convenient copy
More informationPurpose of a Deposition
1 Purpose of a Deposition A deposition permits a party to explore the facts held by an individual or an entity bearing on the case at hand. Depositions occur well before trial and allow the party taking
More informationHOW TO TAKE A PERCIPIENT WITNESS DEPOSITION I. UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF THE DEPOSITION YOU ARE TAKING
HOW TO TAKE A PERCIPIENT WITNESS DEPOSITION I. UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF THE DEPOSITION YOU ARE TAKING A deposition seeks to discover all relevant facts known to the witness, both favorable and unfavorable
More informationWitness testimony The question and answer method (Jack Ruby essay, p. 485) 1. Free narratives are usually not permitted.
Witness testimony The question and answer method (Jack Ruby essay, p. 485) 1. Free narratives are usually not permitted. 2. Leading questions are usually not permitted on direct examination. 1 Why not
More informationEmpire Mock Trial Educate. Connect. Empower. A Guide for Competitors from Canada
General Takes place in the fictional State of Midlands. Takes place in the fictional location of YourTown, Cases can be either Criminal (standard of proof is Ontario. All cases are criminal (standard of
More informationA Guide to Giving Evidence in Court
Preparation A Guide to Giving Evidence in Court It doesn't matter whether you have a lot of experience or a little - you may find that the witness box is a lonely place if you are not prepared for it.
More informationInsight from Carlton Fields Jorden Burt
Insight from Carlton Fields Jorden Burt 2014 Quick Trial Checklist 1. Motions To Be Made or Renewed Just Prior to Trial a. Motions to amend or supplement pleadings or pretrial statement or order b. Motions
More informationV.-E. DEPOSITION INSTRUCTIONS
V.-E. DEPOSITION INSTRUCTIONS (Note: Some of the advice provided below is applicable primarily in personal injury cases. Practitioners will wish to tailor these instructions to suit particular cases.)
More informationRULES OF EVIDENCE Pennsylvania Mock Trial Version 2003
Article I. General Provisions 101. Scope 102. Purpose and Construction RULES OF EVIDENCE Pennsylvania Mock Trial Version 2003 Article IV. Relevancy and its Limits 401. Definition of "Relevant Evidence"
More informationInsight from Carlton Fields
Insight from Carlton Fields Quick Trial Checklist 1. Motions To Be Made or Renewed Just Prior to Trial a. Motions to amend or supplement pleadings or pretrial statement or order b. Motions for continuance
More informationHonorable Todd M. Shaughnessy Erik A. Christiansen Katherine Venti
Best & Worst Discovery Practices Honorable Todd M. Shaughnessy Erik A. Christiansen Katherine Venti A. Utah Standards of Professionalism and Civility: Preamble: "A lawyer s conduct should be characterized
More informationLAW550 Litigation Final Exam Notes
LAW550 Litigation Final Exam Notes Important Provisions to Keep in Mind... 2 Voir Dire... 2 Adducing of Evidence Ch 2 Evidence Act... 4 Calling Witnesses... 8 Examination of witnesses... 11 Cross-Examination...
More informationRules of Evidence (Abridged)
Rules of Evidence (Abridged) Article IV: Relevancy and its Limits Rule 401. Test for Relevant Evidence Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would
More informationHINTS FOR PREPARING FOR THE MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION
2012 - HINTS FOR PREPARING FOR THE MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Trial Overview 1 A. Governing Rules 1 B. Trial Basics 1 II. Opening Statements 2 A. Structure And Outline To Organize Your
More informationCase 1:17-cr KBF Document 819 Filed 06/11/18 Page ORDERED. 1 of 8 GUIDELINES REGARDING APPROPRIATE USE OF 302 FORMS IN CRIMINAL TRIALS
Case 1:17-cr-00350-KBF Document 819 Filed 06/11/18 Page ORDERED. 1 of 8 Post to docket. GUIDELINES REGARDING APPROPRIATE USE OF 302 FORMS IN CRIMINAL TRIALS 6/11/18 Hon. Katherine B. Forrest I. INTRODUCTION
More informationFRCP 30(b)(6) Notice or subpoena directed to entity to require designation of witness to testify on its behalf.
I. Deposition Goals A. Each deposition and each deposition question should be aimed at accomplishing a desired result. 1. Determine knowledge of relevant facts and pin down lack of knowledge of relevant
More informationEffective Management of Civil Cases
Effective Management of Civil Cases Presented to: Managing Civil Trials May 9, 2007 University of North Carolina Chapel Hill So, you are a new judge? Be careful what you wish for 1 First Step Establish
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO CA XXXX MB
9708 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 50 2008 CA 040969XXXX MB THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR CHASEFLEX TRUST SERIES 2007-3,
More informationSECTION 2 BEFORE FILING SUIT
Contents ETHICAL ISSUES IN LITIGATION... 2 HANDLING FALSE INFORMATION... 2 MR 3.3: Candor Towards the Tribunal... 3 Timing of the False Testimony Before the witness takes the stand.... 4 Under oath....
More informationTAKING AND DEFENDING DEPOSITION September 26, :00-1:00 p.m. Presenter: Thomasina F. Moore, Esq.
TAKING AND DEFENDING DEPOSITION September 26, 2007 12:00-1:00 p.m. Presenter: Thomasina F. Moore, Esq. GENERAL INTRO: IMPORTANCE OF DEPOSITIONS PARTICULARLY IN DEPENDENCY CASES: I. Understanding The Different
More informationPRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND THE APPLICATION OF R. v. K.G.B.
PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND THE APPLICATION OF R. v. K.G.B. Brian D. Williston THE ORTHODOX RULE Until recently, the "orthodox rule" dictated that prior inconsistent statements made by a non-party
More informationVolume 31 Number California. Litigation THE JOURNAL OF THE LITIGATION SECTION OF THE CLA
Volume 31 Number 1 2018 California Litigation THE JOURNAL OF THE LITIGATION SECTION OF THE CLA People v. Sanchez, Hearsay, and Expert Testimony By Don Willenburg, Gary A. Watt, and John A. Taylor, Jr.
More informationGuidelines for Professional Conduct
Conferences of Circuit Judges and County Court Judges and Trial Lawyers Section of The Florida Bar Guidelines for Professional Conduct (2008 Edition) Table of Contents FOREWORD...3 PREAMBLE...4 A. General
More informationDIRECT, CROSS, REDIRECT& RECROSS
There are 4 types of questioning / examination in a trial: DIRECT, CROSS, REDIRECT& RECROSS They are conducted in the following order. DIRECT: CROSS: *questioning of your OWN witness for the first time
More informationRule 613: That s not what you said before! By: Andy Moorman Assistant U.S. Attorney
Rule 613: That s not what you said before! By: Andy Moorman Assistant U.S. Attorney ATTACKING THE CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS The theory of attack by prior inconsistent statements is not based on the assumption
More informationSome Friendly, Random Advice On Federal Court Advocacy The Honorable Paul C. Huck, United States District Judge
I. General Advocacy Some Friendly, Random Advice On Federal Court Advocacy The Honorable Paul C. Huck, United States District Judge Judges do not like surprises! Anticipate potential problems, issues or
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
September 22, 2015: Criminal Trial Scheduling and Discovery IN THE MATTER OF : CRIMINAL TRIAL SCHEDULING : STANDING ORDER AND DISCOVERY : The Court having considered a revised protocol for scheduling in
More informationA Guide to Your First Mock Trial
A Guide to Your First Mock Trial Opening Statement (Begin with some kind of hook or story to make the jury interested in your statement.) Good morning ladies and gentlemen of the jury. My name is and I
More informationThe criminal justice system cannot function without the participation of witnesses like you.
Your Role as a Witness in a Criminal Case The criminal justice system cannot function without the participation of witnesses like you. The information you provide is evidence that helps police solve crimes
More informationEDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES
CHAPTER 1 7 MOTIONS EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES Paralegals should be able to draft routine motions. They should be able to collect, prepare, and organize supporting documents, such as affidavits. They may be
More informationWeinstein v. Bullick 827 F. Supp (E. D. Pa. 1993) Judge Giles:
Weinstein v. Bullick 827 F. Supp. 1193 (E. D. Pa. 1993) Judge Giles: The complaint alleges that Sarah Weinstein was abducted in November 1991 from a street in the City of Philadelphia by an unknown assailant
More informationA Snapshot of the Law and Trends on the Admissibility and Qualification of Expert Evidence
A Snapshot of the Law and Trends on the Admissibility and Qualification of Expert Evidence By Stacey Hsu and Daniel Reisler of Reisler Franklin LLP, Toronto In light of the recent media coverage surrounding
More information2016 FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version)
2016 FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version) In American trials, complex rules are used to govern the admission of proof (i.e., oral or physical evidence). These rules are designed to ensure that
More informationFEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version)
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version) (ADOPTED 9/4/2012) INDEX ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS Rule 101 Scope... 1 Rule 102 Purpose and Construction... 1 ARTICLE II. JUDICIAL NOTICE... 1 Rule 201
More informationDefense: Your goal is to convince as many members of the jury as possible that Abigail Williams is innocent of murder. 4 Attorneys
English 10 Crucible Mock Trial The People vs. Abigail Williams Assignment: You will be conducting a mock trial in which the innocence or guilt of Abigail Williams will be determined. For our purposes,
More informationCase 1:05-cr RBW Document 271 Filed 02/07/2007 Page 1 of 9 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 271 Filed 02/07/2007 Page 1 of 9 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) CR. NO. 05-394 (RBW) v. ) ) I. LEWIS LIBBY, )
More informationTRIAL EVIDENCE: MAKING AND MEETING OBJECTIONS
TRIAL EVIDENCE: MAKING AND MEETING OBJECTIONS By: EDWARD A. MALLETT MALLETT GUIBERSON SAPER, L.L.P. 600 Travis Street, Suite 1900 Houston, TX 77002 713-236-1900 telephone 713-228-0321 facsimile edward@mgscounsel.com
More informationOklahoma High School Mock Trial Program RULES OF EVIDENCE ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS. Rule 101. Scope
Oklahoma High School Mock Trial Program RULES OF EVIDENCE ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS Rule 101. Scope These Simplified Federal Rules of Evidence (Mock Trial Version) govern the trial proceedings of the
More informationMULTI CHOICE QUESTIONS EVI301-A
MULTI CHOICE QUESTIONS EVI301-A 2010 Second Semester Assignment 1 Question 1 If the current South African law does not provide a solution to an evidentiary problem, our courts will first of all search
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Longaphy, 2017 NSPC 67. v. Christopher Longaphy. Section 11(B) Charter - Decision - Unreasonable Delay
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Longaphy, 2017 NSPC 67 Date: 2017-11-21 Docket: 2668787, 2668788, 2668789, 2668790 Registry: Dartmouth Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Christopher Longaphy
More informationCOMMON OBJECTIONS CHART (excluding Hearsay, covered in next section)
COMMON OBJECTIONS CHART (excluding Hearsay, covered in next section) Rev. January 2015 This chart was prepared by Children s Law Center as a practice aid for attorneys representing children, parents, family
More informationCase 1:17-cv WYD-SKC Document 150 Filed 02/19/19 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 32 JURY INSTRUCTIONS
Case 1:17-cv-00844-WYD-SKC Document 150 Filed 02/19/19 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 32 Civil Action No. 17-cv-00844-WYD-SKC BRANDON FRESQUEZ, v. Plaintiff, BNSF RAILWAY CO., Defendant. IN THE UNITED STATES
More informationTestifying 201. We will cover today 12/19/2012. CASA Advocacy Skills Seminar December 19, 2012 Charles G. Childress, Attorney at Law
Testifying 201 CASA Advocacy Skills Seminar December 19, 2012 Charles G. Childress, Attorney at Law We will cover today CASA s right to testify Best Interest and testifying to support your best interest
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Evidence And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question While driving their cars, Paula
More informationHANDBOOK FOR VICTIMS/WITNESSES OF VIOLENT CRIMES
HANDBOOK FOR VICTIMS/WITNESSES OF VIOLENT CRIMES Thank you for your cooperation and hard work as a victim/witness. TABLE OF CONTENTS Illinois Crime Victims Bill of Rights Introduction General Information
More informationTHE ANSWER BOOK FOR JURY SERVICE
THE ANSWER BOOK FOR JURY SERVICE Message from the Chief Justice You have been requested to serve on a jury. Service on a jury is one of the most important responsibilities that you will exercise as a citizen
More informationSupreme Court of the Kingdom of Loquntia
Special Publication In The Supreme Court of the Kingdom of Loquntia THE RULES OF THE COURT OF HIS MAJESTY THE SOVEREIGN Enacted R.D. 179, February 28, 2015 The Library of Blue Ink Department of Auditing
More informationP R E T R I A L O R D E R
DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER COLORADO Address: City and County Building 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202 COURT USE ONLY Plaintiff(s):, v. Defendant(s):. Case Number: Courtroom: 215 P R
More informationOverview of Trial Proceedings Role of Judge/Jury, Markman Hearings, and Introduction to Evidence
Role of Judge/Jury, Markman Hearings, and Introduction to Evidence July 21, 2016 Drew DeVoogd, Member Patent Trial Proceedings in the United States In patent matters, trials typically occur in the federal
More informationFEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version) (updated 10/07)
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version) (updated 10/07) In American trials complex rules are used to govern the admission of proof (i.e., oral or physical evidence). These rules are designed to
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LINN COUNTY
Terri Wood, OSB #88332 Law Office of Terri Wood, P.C. 730 Van Buren Street Eugene, Oregon 97402 541-484-4171 Attorney for IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LINN COUNTY STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff,
More informationDefense Counsel's Duties When Client Insists On Testifying Falsely
Ethics Opinion 234 Defense Counsel's Duties When Client Insists On Testifying Falsely Rule 3.3(a) prohibits the use of false testimony at trial. Rule 3.3(b) excepts from this prohibition false testimony
More informationThe Engineer as an Expert Witness Truthful Independent Unbiased. John Garrett
The Engineer as an Expert Witness Truthful Independent Unbiased John Garrett 1 28 th February 2013 Please note The opinions expressed in this presentation are not to be taken as professional advice. This
More informationPRETRIAL INSTRUCTIONS. CACI No. 100
PRETRIAL INSTRUCTIONS CACI No. 100 You have now been sworn as jurors in this case. I want to impress on you the seriousness and importance of serving on a jury. Trial by jury is a fundamental right in
More informationA JUDGE S PERSPECTIVE ON EVIDENCE. (Basic Tools of Your New Trade) W. David Lee. Senior Resident Superior Court Judge.
A JUDGE S PERSPECTIVE ON EVIDENCE (Basic Tools of Your New Trade) W. David Lee Senior Resident Superior Court Judge District 20B School for New Superior Court Judges January, 2009 The Exercise of Judicial
More informationIn the Circuit Court, Sixth Judicial Circuit In and for Pasco and Pinellas Counties, Florida
In the Circuit Court, Sixth Judicial Circuit In and for Pasco and Pinellas Counties, Florida Administrative Order No. PA/PI-CIR-99-46 Standards of Professional Courtesy and Professionalism Implementation
More informationTRIAL OBJECTIONS. Considerations Effect on the jury Scrutinous Judiciously Effective/Disruptive
TRIAL OBJECTIONS Albert E. Durkin, Esq. Miroballi Durkin & Rudin LLC Considerations Effect on the jury Scrutinous Judiciously Effective/Disruptive Will the answer hurt your case? Protecting the record
More informationA. What is Civil Procedure? Civil procedure is about the rules that govern the exercise of state power through civil lawsuits.
OVERVIEW I. Introduction to Civil Procedure A. What is Civil Procedure? Civil procedure is about the rules that govern the exercise of state power through civil lawsuits. B. The 2007 Rewriting of the Federal
More informationINTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
ISRMUN 2015 INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT I. General Description The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a permanent, international tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity,
More informationDELAWARE HIGH SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL RULES OF EVIDENCE
DELAWARE HIGH SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL RULES OF EVIDENCE In American trials, complex rules are used to govern the admission of proof (i.e., oral or physical evidence). These rules are designed to ensure that
More informationAlberta Justice and Solicitor General. Information for Self-represented Litigants In. Provincial Court. Adult Criminal Court
Alberta Justice and Solicitor General Information for Self-represented Litigants In Provincial Court Adult Criminal Court 1 Introduction This booklet outlines some basic information you must be aware of
More informationADVANCED DISCOVERY TECHNIQUES
III. ADVANCED DISCOVERY TECHNIQUES DEPOSITION STRATEGIES A. START EARLY The most important aspect of a successful trial lawyer s practice is thorough preparation. Even the most eloquent and ingenious lawyers
More informationRULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THECOLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO INDEX
October 1, 1996 Last Update: February 23, 2018 Index Page 1 RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THECOLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO INDEX RULE 1 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION...
More informationTHE OPENING STATEMENT - THE PREVIEW TO VICTORY OR THE BEGINNING OF DEFEAT? THE CLOSING ARGUMENT IN AN EMPLOYMENT CASE - HOW TO FINALIZE THE VICTORY
THE OPENING STATEMENT - THE PREVIEW TO VICTORY OR THE BEGINNING OF DEFEAT? THE CLOSING ARGUMENT IN AN EMPLOYMENT CASE - HOW TO FINALIZE THE VICTORY Presented by: LEONARD COURT CROWE & DUNLEVY 20 N. BROADWAY,
More informationCOURT OF COMMON PLEAS CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO : : CASE # PLAINTIFF VS. : CIVIL PRE-TRIAL ORDER (JURY TRIAL) DEFENDANT IT IS ORDERED BY THE COURT AS FOLLOWS: 1. JURY TRIAL: The case is scheduled for a Primary
More informationNon-Scientific Expert Testimony in Child Abuse Trials
Non-Scientific Expert Testimony in Child Abuse Trials A Framework for Admissibility By Sam Tooker 24 SC Lawyer In some child abuse trials, there exists a great deal of evidence indicating that the defendant
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 16, 2008 v No. 278796 Oakland Circuit Court RUEMONDO JUAN GOOSBY, LC No. 2006-211558-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More information