Non-Scientific Expert Testimony in Child Abuse Trials

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Non-Scientific Expert Testimony in Child Abuse Trials"

Transcription

1 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 is guilty. Sometimes there is physical evidence linking a perpetrator to a crime. Sometimes witnesses personally observe instances of abuse. Sometimes perpetrators confess to hurting children. However, in a great many cases of child molestation and abuse, the only evidence indicating that an accused may have harmed a child is the alleged victim s testimony. Children can be inconsistent on the stand. Alleged instances of abuse can expand both in terms of duration and extent of alleged activity from when a child initially discloses to when that child testifies at trial. Sometimes details not remembered when the child is originally interviewed by law enforcement and children s advocacy center personnel are present when the child testifies. The details and duration of allegations can be subject to change. The predictability of such inconsistencies has led to a developing trend in the prosecution of these cases in South Carolina. Our solicitors and assistant solicitors have adopted a specific strategy to deal with the likelihood of inconsistent victim testimony. That strategy calls for the utilization of a witness proffered as an expert and called on to explain to the jury why the inconsistencies in the victim s testimony are not at odds with a finding that the purported crime actually occurred. The practice is an evolving one and one that has, in the last few years, been subject to multiple decisions by the S.C. Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. As a PHOTO BY GEORGE FULTON

2 March

3 result, prosecutors and defense attorneys now have a rough outline for the types of experts that may be permitted to testify, the extent to which these experts can discuss the content of the victim s testimony, and the propriety of this type of testimony. In State v. Kromah 1 and State v. Brown, 2 the S.C. Supreme Court and Court of Appeals developed an analytical framework for the admission of nonscientific sexual abuse expert testimony in cases of criminal sexual conduct with a minor. That framework begins with an examination of the expert s background and testimony pursuant to Rule 702 of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence. 3 That analysis requires the trial court to ensure that the expert s testimony does not improperly bolster or corroborate the alleged victim s testimony. 4 Finally, Rule 403 SCRE prohibits the admission of relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, so any proposed expert s testimony is subject to a 403 balancing test. 5 Rule 702 Rule 702 of the SCRE provides that [i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. 6 In Watson v. Ford Motor Co., the S.C. Supreme Court outlined the three-prong test for the admission of expert testimony. 7 First, the subject matter of the expert s testimony must be beyond the ordinary knowledge of the jury, making plain to the court the benefit to the jury of an explanation from an expert. 8 Second, the proposed expert must have acquired the knowledge and skill necessary to qualify as an expert in a particular field. 9 Third, the court must determine that the substance of the proposed expert s 26 SC Lawyer testimony is reliable. 10 Subject matter beyond the ordinary knowledge of the jury In State v. Brown, the S.C. Court of Appeals answered whether there are circumstances warranting the admission of non-scientific expert testimony describing child abuse patterns in a child molestation trial. In that case, the court examined the propriety of permitting an expert in the field of child abuse disclosure and dynamics to testify about the patterns of disclosure child abuse victims often exhibit. 11 The defendant challenged the admissibility of the expert s testimony, contending that the testimony concerned information within the sphere of the average layperson s knowledge. 12 Citing cases from other jurisdictions as well as drawing a comparison to State v. Weaverling, 13 the court of appeals concluded that the unique and often perplexing behavior exhibited by child sex abuse victims does not fall within the ordinary knowledge of a juror with no prior experience either directly or indirectly with sexual abuse. 14 And, [t]he general behavioral characteristics of child sexual abuse victims are, therefore, more appropriate for an expert qualified in the field to explain to the jury, so long as the expert does not improperly bolster the victims testimony. 15 The child abuse expert s testimony, then, according to the court in Brown, was properly admitted inasmuch as it helped explain why the victims in Brown delayed disclosing the abuse and provided law enforcement inconsistent accounts of their abuse. 16 The expert s testimony included: the reasons children delay disclosing; accidental disclosures; chronic abuse and the effect it plays on a child s ability to sort out the timing and order of abuse; and the effect interpersonal relationships have on the timing and process of disclosure. 17 The court concluded that lay people are not well-versed in the dynamics of child sexual abuse, so the expert s testimony during Brown s trial aided the jury by providing them information explaining how abused children behave during and after periods of abuse. 18 Improper subject matter bolstering As the result of a prosecutorial tactic that was common for some time, there has been a series of cases addressing the impropriety of using an expert witness to bolster the testimony of an alleged child abuse victim. 19 Arguably the seminal case addressing this issue, State v. Kromah makes plain that non-scientific child abuse experts who do nothing more than vouch for the truthfulness of the alleged victim steal from the jury their province as the exclusive judges of credibility. 20 Since Kromah, our child abuse expert cases have fallen into the following two categories: cases where the expert bolsters and corroborates the victim, and cases where the expert does not corroborate the victim. Expert testimony that bolsters the victim In State v. Kromah, 21 the court underlined the injustice of permitting forensic interviewers or other experts to vouch for the veracity of alleged victims. As happens in a great many child abuse cases, a forensic interviewer interviewed the victim in Kromah to collect facts from the child regarding allegations of severe physical abuse at the hands of his stepmother. 22 The state proffered the forensic interviewer as an expert, she was qualified and she testified as to a compelling finding of physical child abuse. 23 The court found that while experts are permitted to provide an opinion, they may not offer an opinion regarding the credibility of others. 24 And, as [i]t is undeniable that the primary purpose for calling a forensic interviewer as a witness is to lend credibility to the victim s allegations, qualifying the witness as an expert compounds the impermissible harm. 25 The

4 court deemed the witness s testimony regarding a compelling finding of abuse as the equivalent of the witness testifying that the victim was telling the truth. 26 The court provided a list of the kinds of statements a forensic interviewer should not make. According to Kromah, while they can testify about the circumstances surrounding an interview and any personal observations of a child s behavior during the interview, forensic interviewers should not provide at trial: that the child was told to be truthful; a direct opinion as to a child s veracity or tendency to tell the truth; any statement that indirectly vouches for the child s believability, such as stating the interviewer has made a compelling finding of abuse; any statement to indicate to a jury that the interviewer believes the child s allegations in the current matter; or an opinion that the child s behavior indicated the child was telling the truth. 27 Likewise, State v. Jennings addressed the issue of victim corroboration in child molestation cases when the prosecution introduced through a forensic interviewer a copy of her report where the interviewer concluded that alleged victims presented compelling disclosures of abuse. 28 The Supreme Court found that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the forensic interviewer s report and conclusions because the forensic interviewer s report was not only inadmissible hearsay but improper vouching of the accusers truthfulness. 29 Permitting the interviewer to opine on the victims veracity took from the jury their province as the judges of the victims credibility. Specific recommendations by child advocacy center personnel can also improperly bolster a victim s testimony. In State v. Chavis, a forensic examiner testified at trial that it was her recommendation that the alleged perpetrator be kept away from the alleged victim. 30 The Supreme Court concluded that this type of testimony improperly bolstered the victim s allegations as the recommendation could only be interpreted as the forensic examiner s belief that the victim had been sexually abused. 31 The Court held that the bolstering was particularly problematic because the witness had previously been qualified as an expert, so it was error to permit the witness to testify regarding her recommendations. 32 Finally, even testimony that the interviewer told the child to tell the truth and that the forensic interview constituted a prerequisite for law enforcement intervention can improperly bolster an accuser s testimony. The court in State v. Anderson deemed improper the trial court s decision to qualify a forensic interviewer as an expert as the interviewer s testimony indirectly vouched for the victim s truthfulness. 33 In Anderson, the forensic interviewer was called to March

5 lay the foundation for the admissibility of the taped recording of the victim s forensic interview pursuant to S.C. Code Section In the process of laying the foundation for the admission of the interview video, the forensic interviewer explained the importance of asking the child to tell the truth and that the interview served as a threshold for law enforcement investigation. 35 The court concluded that the witness s testimony conveyed to the jury that the interviewer and law enforcement believe[d] the victim and that their beliefs led to the defendant s arrest, subsequent charge and trial, thus impermissibly bolstering the minor s credibility. 36 Expert testimony that does not corroborate the victim As opposed to those cases where the prosecution s expert vouched for the victim, either directly or indirectly, in State v. Brown, the proffered expert did not comment on the credibility of the victims, so the court of appeals upheld the trial court s decision to admit her testimony. 37 In Brown, the state s expert testified about some of the ways abused children behave and the process abused children often go through when they begin to disclose abuse. 38 The expert never met the victims and had no knowledge of the facts of the case beyond what the solicitor s office had explained to her. 39 This degree of separation from the case ensured that her testimony could not be construed an opinion regarding the truthfulness of the victims. 40 Because the Brown expert never commented on the credibility of the minor victims, but rather offered admissible expert testimony regarding the general behavioral characteristics of child sex abuse victims, the court of appeals concluded that her testimony did not constitute improper bolstering of the victims. 41 The fact that the expert s testimony corroborated some of the minor victims reasons for delaying disclosure of the abuse does not mean her testimony improperly bolstered their accounts. 42 By segregating the expert from the victims and keeping her testimony to the generalities of childhood sexual abuse and disclosure, the state ensured that the witness s testimony did not constitute improper bolstering. 43 In State v. Berry, the court of appeals addressed the issue of improper bolstering in the context of an expert s testimony that a victim of long periods of childhood sexual assault was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. 44 In Berry, the expert, a psychotherapist and social worker, was qualified as an expert in the field of child sexual abuse assessment and treatment. 45 The expert explained the common behaviors and characteristics associated with childhood sexual trauma and said that she observed some of these same symptoms in the victim, which she attributed to PTSD. 46 While the defendant argued that the expert s testimony consti- 28 SC Lawyer

6 tuted bolstering in violation of the standards outlined in Kromah, the court concluded that the testimony did not invade the province of the jury or serve as a comment on the credibility or veracity of the victim, as the expert testified to observed behaviors and never indicated in her testimony whether she believed the victim was telling the truth regarding the sexual abuse. 47 Knowledge and skill to qualify as an expert in the field Whether an expert in a child molestation case possesses the training and experience necessary to qualify as an expert in the proffered field depends on whether the witness acquired by reason of study or experience or both such knowledge and skill in a profession or science that he is better qualified than the jury to form an opinion on the particular subject of his testimony. 48 The test for qualification of an expert is a relative one that is dependent on the particular witness s reference to the subject. 49 In State v. Schumpert, the S.C. Supreme Court analyzed the propriety of permitting a mental health counselor to testify about rape trauma syndrome. 50 The expert in Schumpert was qualified as an expert in sexual abuse after providing the court evidence of her education and experience. 51 The sufficiency of that background was challenged on appeal. The court concluded that the witness s master s degree in social work and specialization in child and adolescent services as well as her continued training in the field of sexual abuse and involvement aiding abused children was sufficient training and experience for the trial court to have concluded that she possessed the requisite training and experience for qualification as an expert in sexual abuse. 52 In rendering its decision, the court acknowledged that while [t]he party offering the expert has the burden of showing his witness possesses the necessary learning, skill, or practical experience to enable the witness to testify as an expert, defects in the amount and quality of education or experience go to the weight of the expert s testimony and not its admissibility. 53 The expert s qualifications are largely left to the trial judge s discretion, and are subject to an abuse of discretion standard upon appeal. 54 While there was no objection to the qualification of the forensic interviewer as an expert in Kromah, in footnote 5 the court noted: we can envision no circumstance where [a forensic interviewer s] qualification at trial would be appropriate. 55 Specifically, the court acknowledged that while forensic interviewers might be useful as a tool to aid law enforcement officers in their initial investigative process, their work is not appropriate for use in the courtroom. 56 The forensic interviewer s role, then, should be truncated and limited to that of a factual witness responsible for laying the foundational requirements necessary for the admission of the videotaped forensic interview if the videotaped forensic interview satisfies the requirements of Section Reliability of the substance of the expert s testimony Pursuant to State v. White, nonscientific evidence is still subject to the reliability prong of Rule So, in South Carolina, child abuse assessment experts are subject to the reliability standards outlined in State v. White. 59 In State v. Chavis, the S.C. Supreme Court reviewed the qualifications of forensic interviewers in the field of child abuse assessment in light of the reliability requirement of Rule The Court concluded that a forensic interviewer s training, experience, knowledge of forensic interviewing protocol, and number of forensic interviews performed did not sufficiently demonstrate the witness s individual reliability under the third prong of Rule The Court allowed that while there is no formulaic approach to determine the threshold requirements for reliability of non-scientific evidence, evidence of mere procedural consistency does not ensure reliability without some evidence demonstrating that the individual expert is able to draw reliable results from the procedures of which he or she consistently applies. 62 While there is no formulaic approach that will apply in the generality of cases, 63 for a sexual assault expert s testimony to be reliable, it seems, the expert must provide more than the consistent application of a set or sets of procedural requirements. 64 The standards outlined in State v. Council 65 regarding the reliability of scientific expert testimony, while not required for the admission of non-scientific expert testimony, may be a helpful starting point for prosecutors attempting to proffer non-scientific child abuse experts or defense attorneys trying to exclude the same, as the Court in Chavis cites both the prior application of the methodology and the peer review of the witness s procedures as potential indicators of reliability. 66 Rule 403 and the balancing test The final question in cases where nonscientific experts are called to discuss the behavioral characteristics of victimized children is whether the testimony should be excluded when analyzed under Rule 403 of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence. Rule 403 provides that relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. 67 The court of appeals answered this question in Brown inasmuch as it pertains to the admission of expert testimony about the dynamics of child abuse and disclosure. In Brown the court concluded that the child abuse expert s testimony was relevant to help the jury understand various March

7 aspects of victims behavior and provided insight into the often strange demeanors of sexually abused children. 68 Similarly, in State v. Weaverling, the court of appeals concluded that expert testimony regarding common behavioral characteristics of sexual assault victims is relevant and helpful in explaining to the jury the typical behavior patterns of adolescent victims of sexual assault by helping the jury in understanding some of the aspects of the behavior of victims and provid[ing] insight into the sexually abused child s often strange demeanor. 69 CRYSTAL & GIANNONI-CRYSTAL, LLC Lawyers for Lawyers & International Matters CHARLESTON NEW YORK WASHINGTON We provide a broad range of international services to lawyers and their clients, including: International contracts (including M&A) International litigation support Enforcement of judgments/awards Liaison with local counsel European privacy International outside in-house counsel For Italy and EU law: Francesca Giannoni-Crystal Attorney-at-Law (NY, DC, Italy) SC Foreign legal consultant (not a member of SC Bar) (843) info@cgcfirm.com 30 SC Lawyer Conclusion So what is the takeaway? The takeaway is that every potential field for expert qualification in child abuse cases has not been addressed by our appellate courts. So, instead of relying on one case that will save the day, practitioners need an understanding of the case law and how the case law fits into our existing framework of rules. Whether prosecutor or defense attorney, the lawyers trying these cases need to understand the process through which to put a potential nonscientific child abuse expert. Prosecutors need to make sure that they can satisfy the elements of Rule 702, while defense attorneys should ensure that their voir dire of the state s proposed expert includes questions related to each one of the above-outlined issues. It is not good enough to rely squarely on Kromah in attempting to exclude a nonscientific child abuse expert, and it is not good enough to cite Brown when attempting to admit similar testimony. To be prepared, practitioners need to have a fundamental understanding of the framework for the admission of this type of expert testimony and be prepared to apply this framework when required. Sam Tooker practices with David R. Price Jr., P.A. in Greenville. Endnotes 1 State v. Kromah, 401 S.C. 340, 737 S.E.2d 490 (2013). 2 State v. Brown, 411 S.C. 332, 768 S.E.2d 246 (Ct. App. 2015), cert denied (Aug 06, 2015). 3 at 339, 768 S.E.2d at at 343, 768 S.E.2d at at 346, 768 S.E.2d at Rule 702, SCRE. 7 Watson v. Ford Motor Co., 389 S.C. 434, 699 S.E.2d 169 (2010). 8 at 446, 699 S.E.2d at Brown at 337, 768 S.E.2d at State v. Weaverling, 337 S.C. 460, , 523 S.E.2d 787, 794 (Ct. App. 1999). Expert testimony concerning common behavioral characteristics of sexual assault victims and the range of responses to sexual assault encountered by experts is admissible. 14 Brown, at 342, 768 S.E.2d at at , 768 S.E.2d at State v. Jennings, 394 S.C. 473, 716 S.E.2d 91 (2011); State v. Kromah, 401 S.C. 340, 737 S.E.2d 490 (2013); State v. Anderson, 413 S.C. 212, 776 S.E.2d 76, (2015); State v. Chavis, 412 S.C. 101, 771 S.E.2d 336 (2015). 20 Kromah at , 737 S.E.2d at at , 737 S.E.2d at at 356, 737 S.E.2d at at 358, 737 S.E.2d at at 359, 737 S.E.2d at at 360, 737 S.E.2d at Jennings at 479, 716 S.E.2d at Chavis at 109, 771 S.E.2d at Anderson at , 776 S.E.2d at S.C. Code Ann provides for the admissibility of a videotaped forensic interview of a child under twelve years of age if the trial court concludes the forensic interview possess particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. 35 at 220, 776 S.E.2d at at 221, 776 S.E.2d at Brown at 345, 768 S.E.2d at at 344, 768 S.E.2d at at 345, 768 S.E.2d at State v. Berry, 413 S.C. 118, 775 S.E.2d 51 (Ct. App. 2015). 45 at 53, 775 S.E.2d at 131, 775 S.E.2d at O Tuel v. Villani, 318 S.C. 24, 28, 455 S.E.2d 698, 701 (Ct. App. 1995), overruled on different grounds. 49 Watson at 447, 699 S.E.2d at 174. A witness with background in corporate training, computer programming, writing, and motor vehicle brake systems did not possess the training and experience necessary to be qualified as an expert in vehicle cruise control systems. 50 State v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502, 435 S.E.2d 859 (1993). 51 at 505, 435 S.E.2d at Kromah, 401 S.C. at 357, 737 S.E.2d at 499, n State v. White, 382 S.C. 265, 676 S.E.2d 684 (2009), overruling State v. Morgan, 326 S.C. 503, 485 S.E.2d 112 (1997). 59 State v. Chavis, 412 S.C. 101, 107, 771 S.E.2d 336, (2015) at 107, 771 S.E.2d White at , 676 S.E.2d at Chavis at 107, 771 S.E.2d at State v. Council, 335 S.C. 1, 515 S.E.2d 508 (1999). The four factors for consideration in determining the reliability of scientific evidence are: the publications and peer reviews of the technique; prior application of the method to the type of evidence involved in the case; the quality control procedures used to ensure reliability; and the consistency of the technique with established science and procedure Rule 403, SCRE. 68 Brown at 347, 768 S.E.2d at Weaverling at 474, 523 S.E.2d at 794.

FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE 2018

FEDERAL 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 information

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court. Appellate Case No Appeal from Marlboro County Howard P. King, Circuit Court Judge

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court. Appellate Case No Appeal from Marlboro County Howard P. King, Circuit Court Judge THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court The State, Respondent, v. George L. Chavis, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2011-188568 Appeal from Marlboro County Howard P. King, Circuit Court Judge Opinion

More information

Eyewitness identification is evidence received from a witness who has actually seen an event and can so testify in court.

Eyewitness identification is evidence received from a witness who has actually seen an event and can so testify in court. Eyewitness identification is evidence received from a witness who has actually seen an event and can so testify in court. Eyewitness identifications are among the most common forms of evidence presented

More information

Keith Berkshire Berkshire Law Office, PLLC

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 information

Overview of Trial Proceedings Role of Judge/Jury, Markman Hearings, and Introduction to Evidence

Overview 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 information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 12, 2014 v No. 315683 Kent Circuit Court CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL CAMPOS, LC No. 12-002640-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

How to Testify. Qualifications for Testimony. Hugo A. Holland, Jr., J.D., CFE Prosecutor, State of Louisiana

How to Testify. Qualifications for Testimony. Hugo A. Holland, Jr., J.D., CFE Prosecutor, State of Louisiana How to Testify Qualifications for Testimony Hugo A. Holland, Jr., J.D., CFE Prosecutor, State of Louisiana 2018 Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. CPE PIN Instructions 2018 Association of Certified

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No Filed May 17, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lucas County, Gary G.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No Filed May 17, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lucas County, Gary G. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 15-2045 Filed May 17, 2017 STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CHAD MICHAEL GILLSON, Defendant-Appellant. Judge. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lucas County,

More information

Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, HULL, Circuit Judge, and MOORE *, District Judge.

Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, HULL, Circuit Judge, and MOORE *, District Judge. U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals US v PAUL PUBLISH IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 97-9302 D.C. Docket No. 1:97-CR-115-1-GET UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

More information

SIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE

SIMPLIFIED 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 information

NO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

NO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I NO. CAAP-11-0000048 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FAUSTINO TRANSFIGURACION, Defendant-Appellant APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

More information

FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version)

FEDERAL 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 information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 19, 2005 v No. 254007 Wayne Circuit Court FREDDIE LATESE WOMACK, LC No. 03-005553-01 Defendant-Appellant.

More information

EMPIRION EVIDENCE ORDINANCE

EMPIRION 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 information

EXPERT TESTIMONY IN CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE CASES

EXPERT TESTIMONY IN CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE CASES EXPERT TESTIMONY IN CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE CASES by Mark Montgomery PO Box 161 Durham, North Carolina 27702 (919) 680-6249 m.montgomery.atty@gmail.com and Lisa Miles 1200 Broad St., Suite 201 Durham, NC 27705

More information

THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR JUSTICE AND

THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR JUSTICE AND THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR JUSTICE AND THE RULE OF LAW AND THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE EXPERT WITNESSES DIVIDER 6 Professor Michael Johnson OBJECTIVES: After this session, you will be able to: 1. Distinguish

More information

FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE 2019

FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE 2019 FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE 2019 Effective July 1, 1975, as amended to Dec. 1, 2018 The goal of this 2019 edition of the Federal Rules of Evidence 1 is to provide the practitioner with a convenient copy

More information

Evidence Update. ISBA Criminal Law Seminar. April 17, 2015

Evidence Update. ISBA Criminal Law Seminar. April 17, 2015 Evidence Update ISBA Criminal Law Seminar April 17, 2015 Laurie Kratky Doré Ellis and Nelle Levitt Distinguished Professor of Law Drake University Law School Overview Focus upon Iowa Supreme Court s evidentiary

More information

FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version) (updated 10/07)

FEDERAL 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 information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 17, 2008 v No. 276504 Allegan Circuit Court DAVID ALLEN ROWE, II, LC No. 06-014843-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LINN COUNTY

IN 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 information

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc State of Missouri, ) ) Respondent, ) ) vs. ) No. SC93851 ) Sylvester Porter, ) ) Appellant. ) APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS The Honorable Timothy

More information

Oklahoma 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 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 information

Qualifications, Presentation and Challenges to Expert Testimony - Daubert (i.e. is a DFPS caseworker an expert)

Qualifications, Presentation and Challenges to Expert Testimony - Daubert (i.e. is a DFPS caseworker an expert) Qualifications, Presentation and Challenges to Expert Testimony - Daubert (i.e. is a DFPS caseworker an expert) 1. Introduction Theodore B. Jereb Attorney at Law P.L.L.C. 16506 FM 529, Suite 115 Houston,

More information

Rule 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 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 information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : : Criminal No. 99-0389-01,02 (RWR) v. : : RAFAEL MEJIA, : HOMES VALENCIA-RIOS, : Defendants. : GOVERNMENT S MOTION TO

More information

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2015COA122 Court of Appeals No. 12CA0574 Mesa County District Court No. 10CR1413 Honorable Thomas M. Deister, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 4, 2014 v No. 313482 Macomb Circuit Court HOWARD JAMAL SANDERS, LC No. 2012-000892-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

Evidence Presented by: Ervin Gonzalez, Esq.

Evidence Presented by: Ervin Gonzalez, Esq. Evidence Presented by: Ervin Gonzalez, Esq. This seminar focuses on the fundamentals of evidence in Florida including documentary evidence, demonstrative evidence, expert testimony, trial objectives and

More information

Essentials of Demonstrative Evidence

Essentials of Demonstrative Evidence Feature Article Hon. Donald J. O Brien, Jr. (Ret.) Charles P. Rantis Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Chicago Essentials of Demonstrative Evidence Presentation of evidence at trial is constantly evolving. In this

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 29718 STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CRAIG T. PERRY, Defendant-Respondent. Boise, September 2003 Term 2003 Opinion No. 109 Filed: November

More information

If this opinion indicates that it is FOR PUBLICATION, it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

If this opinion indicates that it is FOR PUBLICATION, it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. If this opinion indicates that it is FOR PUBLICATION, it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE GREGORY COLLINS. Argued: February 20, 2014 Opinion Issued: April 18, 2014

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE GREGORY COLLINS. Argued: February 20, 2014 Opinion Issued: April 18, 2014 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

2016 FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version)

2016 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 information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE 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 information

v No Macomb Circuit Court

v No Macomb Circuit Court S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 16, 2018 v No. 337598 Macomb Circuit Court JASON ALLEN NIEMASZ, LC No.

More information

Federal Rules Of Evidence (2012)

Federal Rules Of Evidence (2012) of 27 2/26/2012 10:34 AM Published on Federal Evidence Review (http://federalevidence.com) Federal Rules Of Evidence (2012) The Federal Rules of Evidence Page provides the current version of the Federal

More information

COMMON OBJECTIONS CHART (excluding Hearsay, covered in next section)

COMMON 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 information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 5, 2016 v No. 323247 Ingham Circuit Court NIZAM-U-DIN SAJID QURESHI, LC No. 13-000719-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

Federal Rules of Evidence ARTICLE I - GENERAL PROVISIONS

Federal Rules of Evidence ARTICLE I - GENERAL PROVISIONS Federal Rules of Evidence Federal Rules of Evidence ARTICLE I - GENERAL PROVISIONS Rule 101. Scope Rule 102. Purpose and Construction Rule 103. Rulings on Evidence Rule 104. Preliminary Questions Rule

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellant : JOURNAL ENTRY. vs.

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellant : JOURNAL ENTRY. vs. [Cite as State v. Hruby, 2003-Ohio-746.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 81303 STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellant : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : AND CRAIG HRUBY : OPINION Defendant-Appellee

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED January 19, 2001 v No. 225139 Oakland Circuit Court MICHAEL ALLEN CUPP, LC No. 99-007223-AR Defendant-Appellee.

More information

Case 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 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 information

J. Max Wawrik Nancy Rosado Colon Law 16 Spring 2017

J. Max Wawrik Nancy Rosado Colon Law 16 Spring 2017 J. Max Wawrik Nancy Rosado Colon Law 16 Spring 2017 Law of Evidence KEY TERMS Adversary System (U.S.) A system of justice where the parties work in opposition to each other, and each party tries to win

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LAKE COUNTY. CASE No CR

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LAKE COUNTY. CASE No CR Terri Wood, OSB # Law Office of Terri Wood, P.C. 0 Van Buren Street Eugene, Oregon 0 1--1 Attorney for Defendant IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LAKE COUNTY STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff,

More information

Rules of Evidence (Abridged)

Rules 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 information

Supreme Court significantly revised the framework for determining the. 221, 590 P2d 1198 (1979), in light of current scientific research and adopt[ed]

Supreme Court significantly revised the framework for determining the. 221, 590 P2d 1198 (1979), in light of current scientific research and adopt[ed] I. The Oregon Evidence Code provides the first barrier to the admission of eyewitness identification evidence, and the proponent bears to burden to establish the admissibility of the evidence. In State

More information

What s Your Theory of Admissibility: Character Evidence, Habit, and Prior Conduct

What s Your Theory of Admissibility: Character Evidence, Habit, and Prior Conduct John Rubin UNC School of Government April 2010 What s Your Theory of Admissibility: Character Evidence, Habit, and Prior Conduct Issues Theories Character directly in issue Character as circumstantial

More information

EVIDENCE CALIFORNIA DISTINCTIONS Bar Exam Outline

EVIDENCE CALIFORNIA DISTINCTIONS Bar Exam Outline EVIDENCE CALIFORNIA DISTINCTIONS Bar Exam Outline Law applying to both FRE & CEC is in black Law applying to FRE only is in blue Law applying to CEC only is in red WHEN TO APPLY CALIFORNIA LAW - only on

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 4, 2015 v No. 321381 Bay Circuit Court ABDULAI BANGURAH, LC No. 13-010179-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT DAVID DENMARK, Appellant, v. Case No. 2D04-5107 STATE OF FLORIDA,

More information

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2015-0074, State of New Hampshire v. Christopher Slayback, the court on November 18, 2015, issued the following order: The defendant, Christopher Slayback,

More information

Protecting the Child s Voice: Use and Application of the Child Victim Hearsay Exception

Protecting the Child s Voice: Use and Application of the Child Victim Hearsay Exception Protecting the Child s Voice: Use and Application of the Child Victim Hearsay Exception Presented by: Kelly A. Swartz, Director of Legal Advocacy, and Sara E. Goldfarb and Laura J. Lee, Senior Program

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 28, 2006 v No. 263625 Grand Traverse Circuit Court COLE BENJAMIN HOOKER, LC No. 04-009631-FC

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Innocence Legal Team 1600 S. Main St., Suite 195 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Tel: 925 948-9000 Attorney for Defendant SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Case No. CALIFORNIA,

More information

A 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. 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 information

Where did the law of evidence come from/why have the law of evidence? Check on the power of executive government (Guantanamo Bay).

Where did the law of evidence come from/why have the law of evidence? Check on the power of executive government (Guantanamo Bay). INTRODUCTION: Where did the law of evidence come from/why have the law of evidence? Check on the power of executive government (Guantanamo Bay). Courts deal with serious business. The law of evidence excludes

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAKE CHARLES DIVISION * * * * * * * * *

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAKE CHARLES DIVISION * * * * * * * * * Fontenot v. Safety Council of Southwest Louisiana Doc. 131 JONI FONTENOT v. SAFETY COUNCIL OF SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAKE CHARLES DIVISION CIVIL

More information

West Headnotes (10) 2014 WL Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.

West Headnotes (10) 2014 WL Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. 2014 WL 3729864 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. West Headnotes (10) NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT

More information

RULES OF EVIDENCE Pennsylvania Mock Trial Version 2003

RULES 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 information

MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE (Plant or root growth evidence) Defendant,, by and through her undersigned attorney, moves this Honorable

MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE (Plant or root growth evidence) Defendant,, by and through her undersigned attorney, moves this Honorable MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE (Plant or root growth evidence) Defendant,, by and through her undersigned attorney, moves this Honorable Court to exclude from this cause any testimony or evidence

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed October 10, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-1975 Lower Tribunal No. 13-14138 Delbert Ellis

More information

2017 PA Super 176 OPINION BY PANELLA, J. FILED JUNE 06, About an hour before noon on a Saturday morning, Donna Peltier, the

2017 PA Super 176 OPINION BY PANELLA, J. FILED JUNE 06, About an hour before noon on a Saturday morning, Donna Peltier, the 2017 PA Super 176 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SAMUEL ANTHONY MONARCH Appellant No. 778 WDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 24, 2016 In the Court

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 26, 2010 v No. 294054 Livingston Circuit Court JEROME WALTER KOWALSKI, LC No. 08-017643-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION Case 4:13-cv-00682-ALM Document 73 Filed 12/15/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1103 United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION CORINTH INVESTOR HOLDINGS, LLC D/B/A ATRIUM MEDICAL

More information

2011 RULES OF EVIDENCE

2011 RULES OF EVIDENCE 2011 RULES OF EVIDENCE Pennsylvania Mock Trial Version Article I. General Provisions 101. Scope 102. Purpose and Construction Article IV. Relevancy and its Limits 401. Definition of "Relevant Evidence"

More information

E. Expert Testimony Issue. 1. Defendants may assert that before any photographs or video evidence from a camera

E. Expert Testimony Issue. 1. Defendants may assert that before any photographs or video evidence from a camera In the wake of the passage of the state law pertaining to so-called red light traffic cameras, [See Acts 2008, Public Chapter 962, effective July 1, 2008, codified at Tenn. Code Ann. 55-8- 198 (Supp. 2009)],

More information

North Carolina Rule of Evidence 104: THE OVERLOOKED BUT OMNIPRESENT RULE SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES CONFERENCE ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA JUNE 2007

North Carolina Rule of Evidence 104: THE OVERLOOKED BUT OMNIPRESENT RULE SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES CONFERENCE ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA JUNE 2007 North Carolina Rule of Evidence 104: THE OVERLOOKED BUT OMNIPRESENT RULE SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES CONFERENCE ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA JUNE 2007 CATHERINE C. EAGLES Senior Resident Superior Court Judge District

More information

The Art and Ethics of Cross-Examination Outline

The Art and Ethics of Cross-Examination Outline I. Cross-Examination The Art and Ethics of Cross-Examination a. What Is It? Cross-examination is the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth. You can do anything with a bayonet except

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Innocence Legal Team 00 S. Main Street, Suite Walnut Creek, CA Tel: -000 Attorney for Defendant SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Case No. CALIFORNIA, ) ) Plaintiff,

More information

Impeachment in Louisiana State Courts:

Impeachment in Louisiana State Courts: Impeachment in Louisiana State Courts: La. Code of Evidence Recognizes Eight Ways By Bobby M. Harges 252 To impeach or attack the credibility of a witness in Louisiana state courts, a party may examine

More information

Take the example of a witness who gives identification evidence. French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ stated at [50]:

Take the example of a witness who gives identification evidence. French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ stated at [50]: Implications of IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14 Stephen Odgers The High Court has determined (by a 4:3 majority) that a trial judge, in assessing the probative value of evidence for the purposes of a number

More information

Thinking Evidentially

Thinking Evidentially Thinking Evidentially Writing & Arguing Powerful Motions October 17, 2013 2013 www.rossdalecle.com Presentation of Proof Plaintiff (or prosecutor) presents case-in-chief, then rests; When witnesses are

More information

TIPS ON OFFERING EVIDENCE RELEVANCE

TIPS 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 information

Arguments in Favor of Allowing Prosecutor-Introduced Evidence of Battering and Its Effects

Arguments in Favor of Allowing Prosecutor-Introduced Evidence of Battering and Its Effects Arguments in Favor of Allowing Prosecutor-Introduced Evidence of Battering and Its Effects In the 1970s, Lenore Walker developed the concept of Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS). i The term was coined to describe

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 22, 2015 v No. 322221 St. Joseph Circuit Court JAMES PAUL ZACHARKO, II, LC No. 13-018355-FH

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed September 2, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Gary D.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed September 2, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Gary D. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 9-483 / 08-1524 Filed September 2, 2009 STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RANDY SCOTT MEYERS, Defendant-Appellant. Judge. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for

More information

BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT

BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT E-Filed Document Nov 2 2015 18:30:21 2015-KA-00898-COA Pages: 14 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI GREGORY LORENZO PRITCHETT APPELLANT V. NO. 2015-KA-00898-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

More information

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXPERT WITNESSES

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXPERT WITNESSES TABLE OF CONTENTS EXPERT WITNESSES Contents CREDIBILITY...1 INDEPENDENT EVALUATIONS...6 PRIVILEGES...9 PROFILE TESTIMONY...14 QUALIFICATIONS OF EXPERT...15 ULTIMATE ISSUE TESTIMONY...17 UNIQUE SUBJECTS...26

More information

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014). This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A15-1653 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Ian

More information

Expert Witnesses in Capital Cases. by W. Erwin Spainhour Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Judicial District 19-A May 10, 2012

Expert Witnesses in Capital Cases. by W. Erwin Spainhour Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Judicial District 19-A May 10, 2012 Expert Witnesses in Capital Cases by W. Erwin Spainhour Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Judicial District 19-A May 10, 2012 1. Cost. A significant expense for the taxpayers paid by IDS. In one case,

More information

DELAWARE HIGH SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL RULES OF EVIDENCE

DELAWARE 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 information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. Case Nos CA-101 And 2002-CA-102

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. Case Nos CA-101 And 2002-CA-102 [Cite as State v. Kemper, 2004-Ohio-6055.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. Case Nos. 2002-CA-101 And 2002-CA-102 v. : T.C. Case Nos. 01-CR-495 And

More information

EXPERT WITNESS: A COMPUTER SCIENCE EMPHASIS

EXPERT WITNESS: A COMPUTER SCIENCE EMPHASIS EXPERT WITNESS: A COMPUTER SCIENCE EMPHASIS Allen Coleman David A. Dampier Department of Computer Science and Engineering Mississippi State University dampier@cse.msstate.edu Abstract Expert witness testimony

More information

No. 1D On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County. Don H. Lester, Judge. August 30, 2018

No. 1D On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County. Don H. Lester, Judge. August 30, 2018 FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D16-1828 ROBERT ROY MACOMBER, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County. Don H. Lester, Judge. August

More information

COMMON OBJECTIONS CHART (excluding Hearsay, covered in next section)

COMMON OBJECTIONS CHART (excluding Hearsay, covered in next section) COMMON OBJECTIONS CHART (excluding Hearsay, covered in next section) Rev. January 2017 This chart was prepared by Children s Law Center as a practice aid for attorneys representing children, parents, family

More information

v No Chippewa Circuit Court

v No Chippewa Circuit Court S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 23, 2018 v No. 336755 Chippewa Circuit Court MICHAEL DOUGLAS CARRICK,

More information

Index. Adjudicative Facts Judicial notice, Administrative Rules Judicial notice,

Index. Adjudicative Facts Judicial notice, Administrative Rules Judicial notice, Index References in this index from 900 to 911 are to sections of the Wisconsin Rules of Evidence, and references from 1 to 33 are to chapters of this book. A Adjudicative Facts Judicial notice, 902.01

More information

Defense Counsel's Duties When Client Insists On Testifying Falsely

Defense 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 information

3. Analyzing the admissibility of expert testimony consists of asking four questions:

3. Analyzing the admissibility of expert testimony consists of asking four questions: 13. EXPERT WITNESSES A. Introduction 1. The topic of expert witnesses and the scientific and technical evidence they bring into the trial, is a complicated one. In many law schools, this topic is the subject

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 12, 2015 v No. 318964 Kalamazoo Circuit Court LARRY DARNELL SYKES, LC No. 2013-001056-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 7, 2012 v No. 302671 Kalkaska Circuit Court JAMES EDWARD SCHMIDT, LC No. 10-003224-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiff ) ) ) Defendants RULING RE: ADMISSION OF EXPERT EVIDENCE OF DR. FINKELSTEIN

ONTARIO 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 information

In the Superior Court of Pennsylvania

In the Superior Court of Pennsylvania In the Superior Court of Pennsylvania No. 166 MDA 2008 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ADAM WAYNE CHAMPAGNE, Appellant. REPLY BRIEF FOR APPELLANT On Appeal from the Judgment of the Court of Common Pleas

More information

STATE OF OHIO STANLEY DEJARNETTE

STATE OF OHIO STANLEY DEJARNETTE [Cite as State v. DeJarnette, 2011-Ohio-5672.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 96553 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. STANLEY DEJARNETTE

More information

MAINE RULES OF EVIDENCE

MAINE RULES OF EVIDENCE Last reviewed and edited December 15, 2011 Including amendments effective January 1, 2012 MAINE RULES OF EVIDENCE TABLE OF RULES ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS RULE: 101. SCOPE. 102. PURPOSE AND CONSTRUCTION.

More information

Case 3:07-cr EDL Document 49 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 1 of 8

Case 3:07-cr EDL Document 49 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 1 of 8 Case :0-cr-00-EDL Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CABN United States Attorney BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN Chief, Criminal Division WENDY THOMAS (NYBN 0 Special Assistant United States

More information

LAW550 Litigation Final Exam Notes

LAW550 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 information

Neil Feldscher, CIH, CSP, Esq. and Chip Darius, MA, OHST

Neil 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 information