Impeachment of Witnesses in Civil Litigation: Strategies for Discrediting Adverse Witnesses
|
|
- Christina Williams
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Impeachment of Witnesses in Civil Litigation: Strategies for Discrediting Adverse Witnesses Using Depositions, Testimony and Correspondence to Impeach With Prior Inconsistent Statements, Contradictory Facts and More TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am Mountain 10am Pacific Today s faculty features: Sean P. Costello, Esq., Law Office of Sean P. Costello, Sunbury, Ohio John Zen Jackson, Partner, McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter, Morristown, N.J. Claire Rush, Rush & Sabbatino, New York The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's speakers. Please refer to the instructions ed to registrants for additional information. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service at ext. 10.
2 Tips for Optimal Quality FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY Sound Quality If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet connection. If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. Viewing Quality To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again.
3 Continuing Education Credits FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY In order for us to process your continuing education credit, you must confirm your participation in this webinar by completing and submitting the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation after the webinar. A link to the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation will be in the thank you that you will receive immediately following the program. For additional information about continuing education, call us at ext. 35.
4 Program Materials FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please complete the following steps: Click on the ^ symbol next to Conference Materials in the middle of the lefthand column on your screen. Click on the tab labeled Handouts that appears, and there you will see a PDF of the slides for today's program. Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open. Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.
5 Impeachment of Witnesses in Civil Litigation: Strategies for Discrediting Adverse Witnesses Claire F. Rush, Esq. Rush & Sabbatino, PLLC 111 John Street, Suite 800 New York, NY (O) (212) (F) (212)
6 6
7 KNOW YOUR FILE 7
8 KNOW THE LAW 8
9 A Powerful Persuasion Principle 9
10 CREATE AN OUTLINE a. b. c. a. b. c. FACTS LAW 1. Relevant rule of law a. Elements b. Terms of art in charge 2. Relevant rule of law a. Elements b. Terms of art in charge 10
11 METHODS OF IMPEACHMENT 11
12 The witness has committed an immoral, vicious or criminal act 12
13 The witness has been convicted of a crime 13
14 THE WITNESS LACKED THE CAPACTIY TO TESTIFY 14
15 THE WITNESS IS BIASED 15
16 PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS 16
17 THE WITNESS HAS RELIED UPON INACCURATE OR INCOMPLETE INFORMATION 17
18 THE MECHANICS OF IMPEACHMENT 18
19 THE THREE C S OF IMPEACHMENT Commit the witness to the direct testimony. Confront the witness with the inconsistent statement. Complete the impeachment. 19
20 BEWARE OF POTENTIAL EVIDENTIARY PROBLEMS 20
21 BE PREPARED TO AUTHENTICATE ALL IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE 21
22 STRATEGIES FOR AUTHENTICATING EVIDENCE Stipulate to the authenticity of the document. Subpoena certified copies. Introduce testimony from witness who was present at making and/or signing of the document. Introduce evidence of prior admission of authenticity. Offer circumstantial evidence. 22
23 IMPEACHEMENT TOOLS 23
24 DEPOSITIONS 24
25 PRIOR TRIAL TESTIMONY 25
26 CORRESPONDENCE Letters s 26
27 SCIENTIFIC TREATISES 27
28 SOCIAL MEDIA 28
29 Thank You Claire F. Rush, Esq. Rush & Sabbatino, PLLC 111 John Street, Suite 800 New York, NY (O) (212) (F) (212)
30 Impeachment of Witnesses in Civil Litigation: Strategies for Discrediting Adverse Witnesses Stafford Publications Webinar November 17, 2015 Presented by Sean Costello
31 Impeachment Methods Prior Inconsistent Statements Bias Contradictory Facts 31
32 THEY WENT THATAWAY: PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS 32
33 Prior Inconsistent Statements: FRE 613 (a) Showing or Disclosing the Statement During Examination. When examining a witness about the witness s prior statement, a party need not show it or disclose its contents to the witness. But the party must, on request, show it or disclose its contents to an adverse party s attorney. (b) Extrinsic Evidence of a Prior Inconsistent Statement. Extrinsic evidence of a witness s prior inconsistent statement is admissible only if the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and an adverse party is given an opportunity to examine the witness about it, or if justice so requires. This subdivision (b) does not apply to an opposing party s statement under Rule 801(d)(2). 33
34 Prior Inconsistent Statements under Rule 613 and The Queen s Case A longstanding rule had been that, before questioning a witnesses about a prior inconsistent statement, the attorney must first show that statement to the witness. Rule 613 expressly eliminated this requirement, because, according to the Advisory Committee Note, it was a useless impediment to cross examination. However, there have been some calls to reinstitute the rule. Not all federal courts take Rule 613(a) at face value, relying on Rule 613(b) s requirement that a witness be given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement. 34
35 Prior Inconsistent Statements: Okay for Poets But Not So Okay for Witnesses Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. -Walt Whitman 35
36 Categories of Prior Statements Testimony (trials, depositions, hearings) Written statements under oath (affidavits, declarations) Written statements not under oath ( , letters, publications, social media posts) Litigation papers (document responses, interrogatories) Verbal statements (to anyone)testimony 36
37 Prior Inconsistent Statements: The Fantasy (With Apologies to Aldo Nova) 37
38 Prior Inconsistent Statements: The Perry Mason Moment Fantasy 38
39 Prior Inconsistent Statements: The Reality 39
40 Prior Inconsistent Statements: Summary Not hearsay. If a party makes the inconsistent statement, it is also an admission. If under oath, it may be substantive evidence. Witness must be given opportunity to explain, deny, or admit inconsistent statement. 40
41 Prior Inconsistent Statements: Timing The witness must be afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the same and the opposite party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate [the witness] thereon.... But Rule 613 doesn t dictate when that happens. The rule prescribes only that the opportunity be presented. 41
42 Prior Inconsistent Statements: Just How Inconsistent Must They Be? Statements need not be directly contradictory to be inconsistent. United States v DeSimone, 488 F.3d 561, 572 (1 st Cir. 2007). Obvious: Witness testifies in deposition that the light was green. Witness testifies at trial that the light was red. Not so obvious: Witness testifies in deposition that it was raining. Witness testifies at trial that it was misty. The judge decides if something is inconsistent enough to fall within Rule 613. The jury decides if the inconsistency warrants a wow or a yawn. 42
43 Prior Inconsistent Statements and Deposition Testimony Degrees of Consistency and the Qualified Answer 43
44 Prior Inconsistent Statements and Deposition Testimony What About Differences Between the Errata Sheet and the Deposition? 44
45 Prior Inconsistent Statements and Deposition Testimony What About Differences Between the Errata Sheet and the Deposition? Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e): Allows witness to make changes in form or substance. Many lawyers assume that witnesses cannot change the substance of an answer ( yes to no or green to red ). But the rule explicitly says they can. 45
46 Prior Inconsistent Statements and Deposition Testimony What About Differences Between the Errata Sheet and the Deposition? 3 Approaches: 1. A deposition is not a take home examination. Greenway v. International Paper Co., 144 F.R.D. 322, 325 (W.D. La. 1992). 2. Anything goes, as long as 30(e) s technical requirements are met. Lugtig v. Thomas, 89 F.R.D. 639, 641 (N.D. Ill. 1981) ( language of the Rule places no limitations on the types of changes that may be made even if the changes contradict the original answers ). 3. Substantive changes are fine, as long as they do not contradict deposition testimony. Thorn v. Sundstrand Aerospace Corp., 207 F.3d 383, 389 (7 th Cir. 2000). *Regardless of approach, the original answers remain part of the record and are fair game at trial. 46
47 Prior Inconsistent Statements and Differences Between the Errata Sheet and the Deposition: Challenge or Opportunity? Challenge Is there an inconsistency if the trial testimony is identical to the errata change? To the original deposition answer? Opportunity Impeachment smorgasbord. Witness who keeps changing answers may have credibility issues. Multiple impeachment (Steven Lubet s point): Even if the inconsistency is on a minor matter, the aggregate effect of minor inconsistencies may be significant. 47
48 Prior Inconsistent Statements and Expert Witnesses: Goldmines and Landmines 48
49 Prior Inconsistent Statements and Expert Witnesses: Goldmines and Landmines Goldmines Many experts have written, spoken, and testified on the subject of their trial testimony, A LOT! There are likely to be inconsistencies. There may be multiple inconsistencies on the same subject. 49
50 Prior Inconsistent Statements and Expert Witnesses: Goldmines and Landmines Landmines There may be so much material available that you will have a difficult time reading it all. It s easy to get greedy with inconsistencies, so pick and choose carefully. Most good experts are prepared to deal with inconsistencies, so don t expect a gotcha. What you call inconsistency, a scientist may call evolution in thought. In science, thought is constantly evolving, and it is very easy for an expert on a scientific matter to exploit this to explain away inconsistencies. 50
51 Impeachment and Expert Witnesses: While We re On the Subject, Let s Talk About The Learned Treatise Not the same thing as prior inconsistent statements, but this is a good sidetrack, er, segue. 51
52 Impeachment and Expert Witnesses: While We re On the Subject The Learned Treatise An exception to hearsay. 52
53 Impeachment and Expert Witnesses: While We re On the Subject The Learned Treatise FRE 803(18) Statements in Learned Treatises, Periodicals, or Pamphlets. A statement contained in a treatise, periodical, or pamphlet if: (A) the statement is called to the attention of an expert witness on cross-examination or relied on by the expert on direct examination; and (B) the publication is established as a reliable authority by the expert s admission or testimony, by another expert s testimony, or by judicial notice. If admitted, the statement may be read into evidence but not received as an exhibit. 53
54 Impeachment and Expert Witnesses: The Learned Treatise Must be authenticated. The expert must testify that the text is generally regarded as authoritative or reliable by those in a particular field. But need not be authenticated by the expert currently on the stand, as long as authenticated by some expert who has testified in the case. That means that your expert can refer to the text and then you can use it against the other side s expert. Expert need not have read the passage in question. May be used as substantive evidence or for impeachment (in federal court). 54
55 Prior Inconsistent Statements: Make Em Sweat 55
56 A LOT. 56
57 Prior Inconsistent Statements: The Four C s Commit the witness to the fact you plan to attack Credit the impeaching statement (you made under oath, close in time, etc.) Confront witness with the statement. Confirm with witness that you have read it correctly. 57
58 Prior Inconsistent Statements: Do s Do pick your battles, and impeach only on significant issues (unless you have a good multiple-impeachment case). Do impeach on actual inconsistences, not ambiguities. Do know your record. If the witness clarified an answer and explained away a potential inconsistency, or otherwise qualified an inconsistency, make sure you know that. 58
59 Prior Inconsistent Statements: Do Not s Do not take liberties with impeachment. If you are being cute, the jury will know. Do not give the witness wiggle room e.g., do you recall? Nail it down. Do not impeach for the sake of impeaching, especially if the statement you are impeaching is good for your side. Do not keep going after you have established the inconsistency. Resist the Perry Mason aha exclamation during the examination. It hardly ever works. Save it for closing. 59
60 Bias, Prejudice, Motive, and Interest Rule? There isn t one, at least in the federal rules. No FRE explicitly addresses these bases of impeachment. 60
61 Bias, Prejudice, Motive, and Interest Bias: An individual/personal reason that prevents a witness from being impartial and objective (family relationship, grudge, employment situation, personal history). 61
62 Bias, Prejudice, Motive, and Interest Bias: This is key with expert witnesses. Does the expert testify exclusively for one side on an issue? Does the expert work for an industry that stands to benefit from testimony? Has the expert demonstrated a point of view in prior publications? 62
63 Bias, Prejudice, Motive, and Interest Prejudice: A group-based reason that prevents a witness from being impartial and objective (racial, ethnic, religious, ideological). 63
64 Bias, Prejudice, Motive, and Interest Motive and Interest: The witness stands to gain or lose depending on the outcome of a case. Greed, fear, revenge, love, or all of them, may color testimony. 64
65 Bias, Prejudice, Motive, and Interest Motive and Interest: Particularly important with experts who are hired guns. 65
66 Bias, Prejudice, Motive, and Interest Motive and Interest with Expert Witnesses: Easy to capitalize on public distrust of scientists paid by industry. 66
67 Bias, Prejudice, Motive, and Interest Motive and Interest with Expert Witnesses: But it is also easy to take it to far. Be careful with the hired gun approach, because it works both ways. 67
68 Contradictory Facts What are they? Facts that are different from what the witness testifies they are. 68
69 Contradictory Facts Deal with them like you do prior inconsistent statements. The form of the question matters. 69
70 Contradictory Facts Form dictates proof. Example 1: Q: Did you drive your car between 8 and 10 pm last night? A: No. Example 2: Q: Didn t you drive your car into a ditch last night at 9 pm? A: No. 70
71 Contradictory Facts In Example 1, the question did not assert a fact. The witness s answer ends the colloquy. In Example 2, the question s form implies that the witness actually drove into a ditch. With the witness s denial, the questioning attorney may now need to prove it with extrinsic evidence (if it is noncollateral). 71
72 Thank You! 72
73 Thank You! It s Over. Sean Costello, Esq.* The Law Office of Sean P. Costello, LLC Columbus, Ohio sean@seancostellolaw.com *Licensed to practice law in Georgia and Ohio.
74 Impeachment of Witnesses in Civil Litigation: Strategies for Discrediting Adverse Witnesses (continued) Strafford Publications Webinar November 17, 2015 John Zen Jackson
75 Topics to be addressed (1) Impeaching Your Own Witness (2) Avoiding Pitfalls of Impeachment (3) Rehabilitating Witnesses After Impeachment 75
76 (1) Impeaching Your Own Witness 76
77 Common law concept of vouching for witness is gone 77
78 FRE Who May Impeach a Witness Any party, including the party that called the witness, may attack the witness's credibility. 78
79 Consider impact if you have the burden of proof Does disbelief of the now discredited witness provide affirmative proof regarding the subject of the impeachment? 79
80 If the impeachment is by a prior statement that had been given under oath, it is free from hearsay dangers and is excluded from the category of hearsay under Rule 801(d)(1)(a) so that it has substantive impact. 80
81 Same if the impeachment is by a prior statement of a party opponent 81
82 Where a party s own witness provided damaging testimony, the party is permitted to contradict that evidence with evidence from another party witness. 82
83 Impeachment through contradiction by other witness 83
84 FRE Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence 84
85 Leading questions should not be used on direct examination except as necessary to develop the witness s testimony. Ordinarily, the court should allow leading questions: (1) on cross-examination; and (2) when a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party. 85
86 Direct impeachment under FRE 607 through prior inconsistent statements, convictions, bias, prejudice, reputation or other means can be done. 86
87 Refreshing the witness s recollection I don t remember versus I don t know 87
88 FRE 612 Writings Used to Refresh Recollection (a) Scope. This rule gives an adverse party certain options when a witness uses a writing to refresh memory: (1) while testifying; or (2) before testifying, if the court decides that justice requires the party to have those options. (b) Adverse Party s Options; Deleting Unrelated Matter. Unless 18 U.S.C provides otherwise in a criminal case, an adverse party is entitled to have the writing produced at the hearing, to inspect it, to crossexamine the witness about it, and to introduce in evidence any portion that relates to the witness s testimony. If the producing party claims that the writing includes unrelated matter, the court must examine the writing in camera, delete any unrelated portion, and order that the rest be delivered to the adverse party. Any portion deleted over objection must be preserved for the record. 88
89 Past Recollection Recorded 89
90 FRE 803(5) Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay Recorded Recollection A record that: (A) is on a matter the witness once knew about but now cannot recall well enough to testify fully and accurately; (B) was made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness s memory; and (C) accurately reflects the witness s knowledge. If admitted, the record may be read into evidence but may be received as an exhibit only if offered by an adverse party. 90
91 (2) Avoiding Impeachment Pitfalls 91
92 The purpose of cross-examination To tell your story through the other side s witnesses To argue your case through the witness 92
93 Argue through the witness, not with the witness It is not necessary to cross-examine crossly. 93
94 The great error of cross-examination That every cross-examination should attempt to impeach the adverse witness 94
95 Inherent risk of failing in the attack on a witness's credibility has the consequence of impeaching and undermining the examiner's credibility 95
96 The Ethos of the Trial Attorney a/k/a Rule 1 "Maxim: Cross-examination as to credibility forces the cross-examiner to wager his credibility against the credibility of the witness and the adverse lawyer. " -- Herbert J. Stern, Trying Cases to Win: Cross-examination at 22 (1993) 96
97 Keep in mind the other ways to cross-examine Cross-examining to Get Help (Hitchhiking) Cross-examining to Limit 97
98 Elicit favorable information before attacking the witness 98
99 After eliciting favorable information, damage the witness early in the examination The law of primacy 99
100 Quit while you are ahead and do not expect to hit a grand slam 100
101 Stab the witness and don't just needle him or her Let the small fish go. -- Terry MacCarthy Do not cross-examine on minor discrepancies 101
102 Do not create an inconsistency by taking a statement out of context 102
103 Do not lose control Documents Repeating questions 103
104 Frame questions with as few negatives as possible Clarify ambiguous responses - "that means 'yes'?" 104
105 Do not impeach on information favorable to your case 105
106 Make sure the impeachment is consistent with your theory and theme for the case 106
107 End on a strong point The law of recency 107
108 (3) Rehabilitating Witness After Impeachment 108
109 Explanation On Re-direct Opening the door 109
110 Rule of Completeness 110
111 FRE Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded Statements If a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement, an adverse party may require the introduction, at that time, of any other part - or any other writing or recorded statement - that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time. 111
112 Prior Consistent Statements 112
113 FRE 801(d)(1)(b) - Exclusions from Hearsay If the prior statement is consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge of recent fabrication or acting from recent improper influence or motive in testifying OR to rehabilitate the declarant's credibility as a witness when attacked on another ground, it is free from hearsay dangers and is excluded from the category of hearsay under Rule 801(d)(1)(b). 113
114 This 2014 amendment expanded the substantive use of prior consistent statements. 114
115 The rule in Queen Caroline's Case-- modified in Federal Rules but not completely eliminated 115
116 FRE Witness's Prior Statement (a) Showing or Disclosing the Statement During Examination. When examining a witness about the witness s prior statement, a party need not show it or disclose its contents to the witness. But the party must, on request, show it or disclose its contents to an adverse party s attorney. (b) Extrinsic Evidence of a Prior Inconsistent Statement. Extrinsic evidence of a witness s prior inconsistent statement is admissible only if the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and an adverse party is given an opportunity to examine the witness about it, or if justice so requires. This subdivision (b) does not apply to an opposing party s statement under Rule 801(d)(2). 116
117 FRE 608 A Witness s Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness (a) Reputation or Opinion Evidence. A witness s credibility may be attacked or supported by testimony about the witness s reputation for having a character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or by testimony in the form of an opinion about that character. But evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the witness s character for truthfulness has been attacked. (b) Specific Instances of Conduct. Except for a criminal conviction under Rule 609, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness s conduct in order to attack or support the witness s character for truthfulness. But the court may, on cross-examination, allow them to be inquired into if they are probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of: (1) the witness; or (2) another witness whose character the witness being cross-examined has testified about. 117
118 FRE Attacking and Supporting the Declarant [in a hearsay statement] When a hearsay statement - or a statement described in Rule 801(d)(2)(C), (D), or (E) - has been admitted in evidence, the declarant s credibility may be attacked, and then supported, by any evidence that would be admissible for those purposes if the declarant had testified as a witness. The court may admit evidence of the declarant s inconsistent statement or conduct, regardless of when it occurred or whether the declarant had an opportunity to explain or deny it. If the party against whom the statement was admitted calls the declarant as a witness, the party may examine the declarant on the statement as if on crossexamination. 118
119 119
120 Thank You John Zen Jackson McELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP 1300 Mount Kemble Avenue P.O. Box 2075 Morristown, NJ Tel: (973)
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features: Michael A. Brusca, Shareholder, Stark & Stark, Lawrenceville, N.J.
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Personal Injury Opening Statements and Closing Arguments: Preparing and Delivering, Handling Objections and Related Motions Developing and Presenting
More informationDeposing Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Witnesses
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Deposing Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Witnesses Preparing the Deposition Notice, Questioning the Corporate Representative, Raising and Defending Objections,
More informationSummary Judgment Motions: Advanced Strategies for Civil Litigation
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Summary Judgment Motions: Advanced Strategies for Civil Litigation Weighing the Risk of Showing Your Hand, Leveraging Discovery Tools and Timing,
More informationWitness Examination Strategies in Employment Litigation Best Practices for Direct and Cross Examination of Lay Witnesses
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A Witness Examination Strategies in Employment Litigation Best Practices for Direct and Cross Examination of Lay Witnesses WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23,
More informationLeveraging USPTO Technology Evolution Pilot Program
Presenting a live 60-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Leveraging USPTO Technology Evolution Pilot Program Amending Identifications of Goods and Services in Trademark Registration TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15,
More informationDefeating Liability Waivers in Personal Injury Cases: Substantive and Procedural Strategies
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Defeating Liability Waivers in Personal Injury Cases: Substantive and Procedural Strategies THURSDAY, AUGUST 27, 2015 1pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A E-Signatures and Electronic Loan Documentation in Real Estate Finance: ESIGN and UETA, Interplay With UCC Enforceability, Authentication and Admissibility;
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Drafting Legal Opinions for Article 9 Security Interests: Navigating the Complexities and Avoiding Liability Scope and Limitations, Interests of
More informationPresenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Td Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A In House Counsel Depositions: Navigating Complex Legal and Ethical Issues Responding to Deposition Notices and Subpoenas and Protecting Privileged
More informationDrafting Trademark Settlement Agreements to Resolve IP Disputes
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Drafting Trademark Settlement Agreements to Resolve IP Disputes Negotiating Exhaustion of Infringing Materials, Restrictions on Future Trademark
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features: Satya Narayan, Attorney, Royse Law Firm, Palo Alto, Calif.
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Drafting Nondisclosure Agreements for Information Technology Transactions Negotiating Key Provisions and Exclusions, Navigating Challenges for Information
More informationDefeating Rule 23(b)(3)'s Predominance Requirement Using Defenses and Counterclaims
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Defeating Rule 23(b)(3)'s Predominance Requirement Using Defenses and Counterclaims Evaluating Effectiveness of Strategy in Light of Differing Lower
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Summary Judgment Motions in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions: Pre- and Post-Certification Strategies Disposing of or Limiting Claims,
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 informationNew Jersey Rules of Evidence Article VI - Witnesses
New Jersey Rules of Evidence Article VI - Witnesses N.J.R.E 601. General Rule of Competency Every person is competent to be a witness unless (a) the judge finds that the proposed witness is incapable of
More informationInsurance Declaratory Judgment Actions and the Federal Abstention Doctrine: Strategies and Limitations
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Insurance Declaratory Judgment Actions and the Federal Abstention Doctrine: Strategies and Limitations Perspectives From Policyholder and Insurer
More informationEnvironmental Obligations in Bankruptcy: Reconciling the Conflicting Goals of Bankruptcy and Environmental Laws
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Environmental Obligations in Bankruptcy: Reconciling the Conflicting Goals of Bankruptcy and Environmental Laws Addressing Pre- vs. Post-Petition
More informationDefending Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Depositions in Employment Litigation
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Defending Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Depositions in Employment Litigation Best Practices for Responding to a Deposition Notice, Selecting and Preparing
More informationLay Witness and Expert Witness Depositions in Personal Injury Cases: Advanced Deposition Techniques
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Lay Witness and Expert Witness Depositions in Personal Injury Cases: Advanced Deposition Techniques Leveraging Restatement, Summarization, Boxing-In
More informationLitigating Employment Discrimination
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A Litigating Employment Discrimination Claims: Filing in State vs. Federal Court Evaluating Substantive and Procedural Advantages and Risks of Each
More informationRendering Third-Party Legal Opinions on LLC Status, Power, Action, Enforceability and Membership Interests
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Rendering Third-Party Legal Opinions on LLC Status, Power, Action, Enforceability and Membership Interests Drafting Defensible Opinions and Minimizing
More informationEFFECTIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION TIPS LAWRENCE J. WHITNEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
EFFECTIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION TIPS LAWRENCE J. WHITNEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW I. GENERAL REMARKS A. Accountability (Advocate) 1. Just you 2. No one else is there for client - never do or say anything that goes
More informationChallenging Unfavorable ICANN Objection and Application Decisions
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Challenging Unfavorable ICANN Objection and Application Decisions Leveraging the Appeals Process and Courts to Overcome ICANN Determinations Absent
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 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 informationEvidentiary Challenges in Divorce Cases: From Writings and Photos to Text Messages and Social Media
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Evidentiary Challenges in Divorce Cases: From Writings and Photos to Text Messages and Social Media Authenticating, Admitting and Objecting to Admission
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 informationPreparing for and Navigating PTAB Appeals Before the Federal Circuit
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Preparing for and Navigating PTAB Appeals Before the Federal Circuit Conducting PTAB Trials With Eye to Appeal, Determining Errors for Appeal, Understanding
More informationPrior Statements in Montana: Part I
The Alexander Blewett III School of Law The Scholarly Forum @ Montana Law Faculty Journal Articles & Other Writings Faculty Publications 2013 Prior Statements in Montana: Part I Cynthia Ford Alexander
More informationPreparing Witnesses for Deposition: Overcoming Challenges With 30(b)(6) Representatives and Fact and Expert Witnesses
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Preparing Witnesses for Deposition: Overcoming Challenges With 30(b)(6) Representatives and Fact and Expert Witnesses Navigating Current Restrictions
More informationMexico's New Anti-Corruption Laws and Implementing Regulations: Private Entities and Individuals in the Crosshairs
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Mexico's New Anti-Corruption Laws and Implementing Regulations: Private Entities and Individuals in the Crosshairs Key Provisions, Ensuring Compliance
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 informationKeith 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 informationAdmissibility of Electronic Evidence
Admissibility of Electronic Evidence PAUL W. GRIMM AND KEVIN F. BRADY 2018 Potential Authentication Methods Email, Text Messages, and Instant Messages Trade inscriptions (902(7)) Certified copies of business
More informationDiscovery Strategies in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions Before and After Certification of Putative Class
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Discovery Strategies in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions Before and After Certification of Putative Class Strategically Limiting Discovery
More informationProvisional Patent Applications: Preserving IP Rights in First-to-File System
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Provisional Patent Applications: Preserving IP Rights in First-to-File System Assessing Whether to Use - and Strategies for Leveraging Provisional
More informationStrategic Use of Joint Defense Agreements in Litigation: Avoiding Disqualification and Privilege Waivers
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Strategic Use of Joint Defense Agreements in Litigation: Avoiding Disqualification and Privilege Waivers Drafting Agreements That Minimize Risks
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 informationSIMULATED MBE ANALYSIS: EVIDENCE PROFESSOR ROBERT PUSHAW PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
SIMULATED MBE ANALYSIS: EVIDENCE PROFESSOR ROBERT PUSHAW PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW Editor's Note 1: This handout contains a detailed answer explanation for each Evidence question that appeared
More informationThinking 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 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 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 informationEvidentiary Disclosures in Parallel Criminal and Civil Proceedings
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Evidentiary Disclosures in Parallel Criminal and Civil Proceedings Navigating the Discovery Minefield and Protecting Attorney-Client Privilege WEDNESDAY,
More informationAppellate Practice: Identifying Issues for Appeal, Drafting Questions Presented, and Briefing the Issues
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Appellate Practice: Identifying Issues for Appeal, Drafting Questions Presented, and Briefing the Issues THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2017 1pm Eastern
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 informationDefending Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Depositions Responding to a Deposition Notice, Selecting and Preparing Witnesses
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Defending Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Depositions Responding to a Deposition Notice, Selecting and Preparing Witnesses THURSDAY, APRIL 18, 2013 1pm
More informationPRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE
PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE FEDERAL RULE 801(D)(1)(A): THE COMPROMISE Stephen A. Saltzburg* INTRODUCTION Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A) is a compromise. The Supreme Court
More informationNew Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure: Impact on Chapter 7, 12 and 13 Secured Creditors
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A New Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure: Impact on Chapter 7, 12 and 13 Secured Creditors THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2018 1pm Eastern 12pm Central
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 informationE-Discovery and Spoliation Issues: Litigation Pitfalls, Duty to Preserve, and Claw-Back Agreements
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A E-Discovery and Spoliation Issues: Litigation Pitfalls, Duty to Preserve, and Claw-Back Agreements THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2018 1pm Eastern 12pm
More informationHIPAA Compliance During Litigation and Discovery
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A HIPAA Compliance During Litigation and Discovery Safeguarding PHI and Avoiding Violations When Responding to Subpoenas and Discovery Requests THURSDAY,
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 informationArticle III Standing and Rule 23(b)(3) Certification: Emerging Litigation Trends
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Article III Standing and Rule 23(b)(3) Certification: Emerging Litigation Trends Strategies for Plaintiff and Defense Counsel to Pursue or Challenge
More informationNavigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Navigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield Addressing Section 112 Issues in IPR Petitions, Establishing
More information2011 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 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 information6.17. Impeachment by Instances of Misconduct
6.17. Impeachment by Instances of Misconduct (1) Subject to paragraph (c), (a) the credibility of a witness may be impeached on cross-examination by asking the witness about prior specific criminal, vicious,
More informationExtraterritorial Reach of Lanham Act and Protection of IP Rights: Pursuing Foreign Infringers
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Extraterritorial Reach of Lanham Act and Protection of IP Rights: Pursuing Foreign Infringers TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 2018 1pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am
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 informationRule 605. Competency of judge as witness. NC General Statutes - Chapter 8C Article 6 1
Article 6. Witnesses. Rule 601. General rule of competency; disqualification of witness. (a) General rule. Every person is competent to be a witness except as otherwise provided in these rules. (b) Disqualification
More informationA Primer on 30(b)(6) Depositions
A Primer on 30(b)(6) Depositions A Defense Perspective David L. Johnson Kyle Young MILLER & MARTIN PLLC Nashville, Tennessee dljohnson@millermartin.com kyoung@millermartin.com At first blush, selecting
More informationNavigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Navigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield Addressing Section 112 Issues in IPR Petitions, Establishing
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 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 informationSpoliation of Evidence in Personal Injury Claims: Mitigation and Prevention
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Spoliation of Evidence in Personal Injury Claims: Mitigation and Prevention Identifying and Responding to Potential Evidence Spoliation and Drafting
More informationPatent Infringement Claims and Opinions of Counsel Leveraging Opinion Letters to Reduce the Risks of Liability and Enhanced Damages
Presenting a 90-Minute Encore Presentation of the Teleconference with Email Q&A Patent Infringement Claims and Opinions of Counsel Leveraging Opinion Letters to Reduce the Risks of Liability and Enhanced
More informationPRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION LAW 101 March 1, 2012, 4:00p.m. Courtroom M1404 ASK A PROPER QUESTION - FACTUAL AND EXPERT WITNESSES
PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION LAW 101 March 1, 2012, 4:00p.m. Courtroom M1404 ASK A PROPER QUESTION - FACTUAL AND EXPERT WITNESSES Speakers: Honorable Krystal Q. Alves, Circuit Court Honorable
More informationContents. Dedication... v. About the Author... xvii. Acknowledgments... xix. Foreword... xxi. Preface... xxv A Note about Primary Sources...
Dedication... v About the Author... xvii Acknowledgments... xix Foreword... xxi Preface... xxv A Note about Primary Sources... xxvi Chapter 1 Trial Process and Procedure... 1 The Role of the Trial Judge
More informationThird-Party Legal Opinions in Corporate Transactions
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Third-Party Legal Opinions in Corporate Transactions Defining Scope, Limitations and Key Terms; Minimizing Liability Risks for Opinion Giver THURSDAY,
More informationExamination, Cross-Examination, and Redirect Examination. Penny J. White May 2015
Examination, Cross-Examination, and Redirect Examination Penny J. White May 2015 I. Learning Objectives for this Session: Following this session, participants will be able to: 1. Exercise appropriate control
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 Dave brought his sports car into
More informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act: When Do U.S. Antitrust Laws Apply to Foreign Conduct? Navigating the Applicability of the FTAIA's "Effects
More informationFederal 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 information3:05-cv MBS Date Filed 05/08/13 Entry Number 810 Page 1 of 16
3:05-cv-02858-MBS Date Filed 05/08/13 Entry Number 810 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION United States of America, ex rel. ) Michael
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 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 informationEmployment Arbitration i Agreements Crafting Enforceable Arbitration Clauses and Successfully Navigating the ADR Process
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A Employment Arbitration i Agreements Crafting Enforceable Arbitration Clauses and Successfully Navigating the ADR Process WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2011
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 informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Plaintiff, Civ. No (RHK/JJK) v. JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CASE 0:12-cv-00472-RHK-JJK Document 362 Filed 07/22/14 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Jesse Ventura a/k/a James G. Janos, Plaintiff, Civ. No. 12-472 (RHK/JJK) v. JURY INSTRUCTIONS
More informationMasters of the Courtroom SM
Masters of the Courtroom SM Direct & Cross Examination The Hon. Carl J. Barbier, USDC EDLA Darleen M. Jacobs, The Law Offices of Darleen M. Jacobs Kerry Miller, Frilot Course Number: 0200141211 1 Hour
More informationWitnesses and Working with Experts Best Practices to Avoid Unethical Coaching of Lay and Expert Witnesses
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A Ethical Challenges in Preparing Witnesses and Working with Experts Best Practices to Avoid Unethical Coaching of Lay and Expert Witnesses WEDNESDAY,
More informationEvidentiary Challenges: Admissibility, Weight, Reliability, and Impeachment v. Rebuttal Evidence
Evidentiary Challenges: Admissibility, Weight, Reliability, and Impeachment v. Rebuttal The Honorable F. James Loprest, Jr. Assistant Chief Immigration Judge New York Area Immigration Courts The Honorable
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 informationSolving the CERCLA Statute of Limitations and Preemption Puzzles
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Solving the CERCLA Statute of Limitations and Preemption Puzzles Lessons From Recent Decisions for Timing in Superfund and Environmental Litigation
More informationUCC Articles 8 and 9 and the Hague Securities Convention: Investment Property Update
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A UCC Articles 8 and 9 and the Hague Securities Convention: Investment Property Update Resolving Current Risks Facing Securities Customers, Banks,
More informationCharacter and Prior Conduct. What is Character? 8/2/2010. John Rubin School of Government April Who can put character in issue?
Character and Prior Conduct John Rubin School of Government April 2010 What is Character? Character comprises the actual qualities and characteristics of an individual Is extrinsic evidence admissible?
More informationWhy? Test Specific Knowledge Course Coverage Test Critical Reading Objective Grading
Why? Test Specific Knowledge Course Coverage Test Critical Reading Objective Grading Part of a Continuum MBE Essay PT Memorize law Critical reading Identify relevant facts Marshal facts Communication skills
More informationFCRA Class Actions in Employment on the Rise: Avoiding and Defending Claims
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A FCRA Class Actions in Employment on the Rise: Avoiding and Defending Claims Drafting Policies and Procedures for FCRA Compliance, Leveraging Class
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA COMMITTEE ON RULES OF EVIDENCE. Proposed Amendment of Rule of Evidence 803.1(1)
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA COMMITTEE ON RULES OF EVIDENCE Proposed Amendment of Rule of Evidence 803.1(1) The Committee on Rules of Evidence is publishing for comment a proposal to amend Rule of Evidence
More informationStructuring MOUs, LOIs, Term Sheets and Other Nonbinding Legal Documents
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Structuring MOUs, LOIs, Term Sheets and Other Nonbinding Legal Documents Avoiding Unintended Performance or Financial Obligations, Utilizing Express
More informationExamination of witnesses
Examination of witnesses Rules and procedures in the courtroom for eliciting (getting information) from witnesses Most evidence in our legal system is verbal. A person conveying their views and beliefs,
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 informationCONTENTS. vii. Acknowledgments
CONTENTS Acknowledgments xvii Chapter 1 The Role and Importance of Depositions 1 The Essentials: Preparation and an Understanding of the Deposition Process 1 How the Book Approaches Depositions 4 The Use
More informationCOURSE OUTLINE AND ASSIGNMENTS
EVIDENCE: COURSE OUTLINE AND ASSIGNMENTS Topic 1: Introduction to the Law of Evidence Read: Text pages 1 9 Rules 101, 102, 1101 A. Addressing Societal Conflicts/Disputes 1. Name various ways we address
More informationEffective Discovery Strategies in Class Action Litigation Leveraging Trends and Best Practices for Depositions, Expert Witnesses and E-Discovery
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Effective Discovery Strategies in Class Action Litigation Leveraging Trends and Best Practices for Depositions, Expert Witnesses and E-Discovery
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 information2:16-cv EIL # 106 Page 1 of 20
2:16-cv-02222-EIL # 106 Page 1 of 20 E-FILED Friday, 18 May, 2018 03:51:00 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD Members of the jury, you have seen and heard all the evidence and will hear the arguments
More informationState Wage and Hour Class Actions Navigating Procedural and Substantive Challenges in Pursuing or Defending Dual Filed Claims
Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A Hybrid FLSA Collective Actions and State Wage and Hour Class Actions Navigating Procedural and Substantive Challenges in Pursuing or Defending Dual
More informationFRCP 45 Third-Party Subpoenas: Using or Objecting to Subpoenas to Obtain Testimony and Evidence
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A FRCP 45 Third-Party Subpoenas: Using or Objecting to Subpoenas to Obtain Testimony and Evidence TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2017 1pm Eastern 12pm Central
More informationRecanting Victims 7/19/2018. Goals of Presentation. Give effective ways of dealing with recanting victims pre-trial
Recanting Victims SIMONE HYLTON SENIOR ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY STONE MOUNTAIN JUDICIAL CIRCUIT Goals of Presentation Give effective ways of dealing with recanting victims pre-trial Give tools to use
More information