SYLLABUS COURSEBOOK EXAM AND CLASS PARTICIPATION. There will be one final exam. It will have an objective section and an essay section.
|
|
|
- Teresa Chandler
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 SYLLABUS COURSEBOOK Please obtain a copy of ROGER C. PARK AND RICHARD D. FRIEDMAN, EVIDENCE CASES AND MATERIALS (12th Ed. 2013). EXAM AND CLASS PARTICIPATION There will be one final exam. It will have an objective section and an essay section. The exam will be a closed book exam. During the exam, you will receive a handout containing the Federal Rules of Evidence and selected provisions of the California Evidence Code for your use during both parts of the exam. Credit may be given for class participation. CONTACT INFORMATION Office hours: To be added. Telephone: (415) parkr@uchastings.edu 1
2 Making The Record and Trial Objections READING ASSIGNMENTS Read Chapter One of the Casebook during the first half of the semester. This assignment will be relevant to class discussion, but will not be discussed on a page-by-page basis. Relevancy and Its Counterweights 1. Casebook, pp ; Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) in Appendix A and related notes/history in Appendix B; California Evidence Code (CEC) 210, 352 in Appendix D; Questions 1 and 2 on p. 100 Knapp v. State; Sherrod v. Berry; Old Chief v. United States; Ballou v. Henri Studios, Inc. 2. Casebook, pp ; FRE , question, p.125. Read the text of Rules 404 and 405 with special care and prepare to answer specific questions about them. Cleghorn v. New York Central & H. River Ry. Co.; Wellman, The Art of Cross-Examination; Comment on Rule 405(b); Michelson v. United States; Camus, The Stranger; A.L.I., Model Penal Code; CPI Trial Manual; TR as Character Witness. 3. Casebook, pp ; FRE ; CEC Questions 1-6, p McCormick s Handbook of Evidence; United States v. Carrillo; California Constitution Art. 1, sec. 28; United States v. Beasley. 4. Casebook, pp ; FRE ; Advisory Committee s Note to FRE 406 in Appendix B; FRE 104(a)-(b) and related materials in App. B;. Questions 1-5, p. 154 United States v. Cunningham; Tucker v. State; Huddleston v. United States; Note, Other Crime Evidence Offered against a Defendant who was Acquitted of the Other Offense; Perrin v. Anderson; Park, Leonard, Orenstein & Goldberg; Halloran v. Virginia Chemicals, Inc. 5. Review prior assignment. 6. Casebook, pp ; FRE Note; State v. Cassidy; Olden v. Kentucky; US v. Platero; Johnson v. Elk Lake School District; Park, Character at the Crossroads. 7. Casebook, pp ; FRE Similar Happenings: Simon v. Kennebunkport; Morris; Subsequent Precautions: Tuer v. Mc Donald; R. I. R. Evid Offers in Compromise: Davidson v. Prince; Note. 8. Review prior assignment. [There is no assignment 9.] 2
3 Hearsay and the Confrontation Right 10. Casebook, pp ; ; FRE 801(a)-(c), 802. Skim FRE 803(3). Phillimore on Raleigh s Case; Tribe, Triangulating Hearsay; Park, Two Definitions of Hearsay; McCormick; (Skip Estate of Murdock, pp ); Subramaniam v. Public Prosecutor; Vinyard v. Vinyard Funeral Home, Inc.; Johnson v. Misericordia Community Hospital; Ries Biologicals, Inc. v. The Bank of Santa Fe; Strahorn, A Reconsideration; Fun-Damental Too, Ltd. 11. Casebook, pp ;; FRE 801(a)-(c); Advisory Committee's Note to FRE 801(a)-(c) in Appendix B. United States v. Hernandez; United States v. Zenni; Commonwealth v. Knapp; Morton, The Rothschilds; Sending a Message; McCormick, The Borderline of Hearsay. 12. Casebook, pp ; FRE 801(a)-(c); Question, p. 227 Wilson v. Clancy; Morgan, Basic Problems of Evidence; US v. Jaramillo-Suarez; US v. Rhodes; Lilly on Evidence; US v. Brown; City of Webster Groves v. Quick; Morgan, Hearsay and Non-Hearsay 13. Casebook, pp Crawford v. Washington 14. Casebook, pp ; FRE 801(d)(2), 805; Advisory Committee's Note to FRE 801(d)(2) in Appendix B. Reed v. McCord; Shakespeare (Othello); United States v. Hoosier; La Buy, Jury Instructions; The Gospel According to Luke; "Our Crowd"; Admission by Silence--Another View; State v. Carlson; La Buy, Jury Instructions; Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival & Research Center. 15. Casebook, pp ; FRE 801(d)(2); FRE 104; Questions, p. 275, 280. Compare CEC , especially (Note: The final sentence of present FRE 801(d)(2) was added in 1997, after the Bourjaily decision.) Big Mack Trucking Co. v. Dickerson; Sabel v. Mead Johnson & Co.; United States v. Di Domenico; United States v. Goldberg; United States v. Doerr; Bourjaily v. United States. 16. Casebook, pp ; FRE 803(1), 803(2), 803(3), 805; Questions 1-4, p Also read Advisory Committee's Note to FRE 803(1) and 803(2) in Appendix B. Compare CEC , Appendix D. Hutchins & Slesinger article; Truck Ins. Exchange v. Michling; Lira v. Albert Einstein Medical Center; State v. Jones. 17. Casebook, pp Davis v. Washington; Michigan v. Bryant 18. Casebook, pp ; Questions, p. 320; FRE 803(3) Adkins v. Brett; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Hillmon 3
4 19. Casebook, pp ; FRE 803(4) and related legislative history in Appendix B; CEC ; Questions, pp , , 344. Shepard v. United States; United States v. Pheaster; Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Rogers Imports; United States v. Tome on remand. 20. Casebook, pp ; FRE 804(a), 804(b )(1) Travelers Fire Insurance Co. v. Wright; Note on issue preclusion; Note on predecessors in interest; United States v. Salerno. 21. Casebook, pp ; Questions 1 and 3, p. 367; FRE 804(b)(3); CEC 1230 State v. English; G. M. McKelvey Co.; United States v. Barrett; Green v. Georgia; Williamson v. United States. 22. Casebook, pp ; FRE 804(b)(2) and 804(b)(6); Question, p Cairns, Law and the Social Sciences; King John; Lope de Vega; Louis XVI; Stephen s Account; R. v. Perry; State v. Williams; Garza v. Delta Tau Delta Fraternity National; Roger W. Kirst; Richard D. Friedman; Giles v. California. 23. Casebook, pp ; FRE 801(d)(1), 803(5), 611, 612; Hypotheticals, p Weinstein's Evidence; United States v. Owens; Baker v. State; Adams v. New York Central (Class exercise: laying foundation for past recollection recorded.) 24. Casebook-, pp and ; Questions, p. 411; FRE 106, 803(5)-(7), 805, 806; Legislative history in Appendix B relating to FRE 803(6). CPI Trial Manual; Johnson v. Lutz; United States v. Vigneau; Hahnemann University Hospital v. Dudnick; Potamkin Cadillac. 25. Casebook, pp ; FRE 803(8); Hypothetical, p. 461 Palmer v. Hoffman; Lewis v. Baker; Sana v. Hawaiian Cruises Ltd; Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey 26. Casebook, pp ; Qs 1-3, 7 on pp Friedman, The Sky is Still Not Falling; Williams v. Illinois; United States v. Grady 27. Casebook, pp ; FRE 807; Hypotheticals, p McCormick, Law and the Future: Evidence; Turbyfill v. International Harvester Co; Zenith Case; ABA Section of Litigation, Emerging Problems. Impeachment and Rehabilitation 28. Casebook, pp ; FRE 607, 611, 801(d)(1)(A). CEC Questions, pp Kaplan and Waltz, The Trial of Jack Ruby; Mathew, Forensic Fables; Susanna and the Elders; Gilbert Without Sullivan; Mathew, Forensic Fables; United States v. Hogan; State v. Oswalt. 4
5 29. Casebook, pp ; FRE 608; Questions 1-3 and 5, pp United States v. Copelin; United States v. Owens; Illustration: Cross-Examination; Steur & Steur; Note on Extrinsic Evidence; United States v. Drake. 30. Casebook, pp ; FRE , 806; Questions, p United States v. Sanders; Note; Calif. Constitution Art. 1 28; Notes; United States v. Brackeen; Abby's View; Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co.; Luce v. United States; Note on Ohler v. United States; Mathes and Devitt, Federal Jury Practice. 31. Casebook, pp ; FRE 608, 609, 610, 613, 801(c), 801(d)(1); CEC 770, 791, 1235, 1236; Hypos, p , Questions about Minnesota Rule, middle of p United States v. Lindstrom; The Testimony of Dr. Binger; UPI-Harlow Story; Coles v. Harsch; Goldstein, Trial Technique; Park, Leonard, Orenstein & Goldberg; Morgan; Tome v. United States; Minn. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B). 32. Casebook, pp Review pp (trial objections); preview pp (lay opinion). United States v. Abel; Waltz, Criminal Evidence. (The class associated with this assignment will include an exercise on witness examination.) Opinion, Expertise and Experts 33. Casebook, pp ; FRE and Advisory Committee s Note to those sections Maguire excerpt; Commonwealth v. Holden; Government of the Virgin Islands v. Knight; Waltz, Criminal Evidence; Waltz & Inbau, Medical Jurisprudence; Note on Objections to Form of Expert Testimony; State v. Odom. 34. Casebook, pp ; Advisory Committee s Note to 2000 Amendment to FRE 703 United States v. Scop; Ingram v. McCuiston; Waltz, The New Federal Rules of Evidence; United States v. Brown; United States v. Tran Trong Cuong; People v. Gardeley 35. Review prior assignment and read Casebook, pp United States v. Moore; United States v. Kristiansen; Note; National Law Journal excerpt; United States v. Moore 36. Casebook, pp ; FRE 702 and Advisory Committee s Note. The Case Against Expert Witnesses; Langbein, The German Advantage.; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; General Electric Co. v. Joiner; Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael; Ellis v. State. 5
6 37. Casebook, pp , State v. Porter; People v. Collins (except for appendix) Writings 38.. Casebook, pp FRE , McCormick, Evidence; Meyers v. United States; People v. Enskat; United States v. Diaz-Lopez; Dale A. Nance, The Best Evidence Principle; McCormick, Evidence; United States v. Dockins; United States v. Hampton; First State Bank of Denton v. Maryland Cas. Co.; Griffin v. State. 6
Witness 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
Evidence Problems and Materials Fifth Edition
Evidence Problems and Materials Fifth Edition LexisNexis Law School Publishing Advisory Board Paul Caron Professor of Law Pepperdine University School of Law Bridgette Carr Clinical Professor of Law University
Detailed Table of Contents
Detailed Table of Contents Editors Note...iii Preface...v General Table of Contents...vii Detailed Table of Contents...ix Table of Cases... xxv Ch a p t e r On e Overview... 1 A. What is Evidence...1 1.
Reporting Animal Cruelty for Veterinarians
Reporting Animal Cruelty for Veterinarians By Claudine Wilkins and Jessica Rock, Founders of Animal Law Source BACKGROUND Due to increased prosecution of animal cruelty defendants, Veterinarians are being
Evidence 213B Professor Schroeder (Fall 2015) Reading List / Course Assignments (Rev. 08/08/2015) Page 1
Reading List / Course Assignments (Rev. 08/08/2015) Page 1 Class Schedule Fall 2015 Class# Day Date 1 Mon 17-Aug 2 Wed 19-Aug 3 Mon 24-Aug 4 Wed 26-Aug 5 Mon 31-Aug 6 Wed 2-Sep HOLIDAY Mon 7-Sep 7 Wed
Evidence Lessons. Center for Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction
Evidence Lessons Best Evidence Rule Under the Federal Rules... 1 Character Evidence Under Federal Rules... 1 The Concept of Hearsay... 1 Confrontation of Hearsay Declarants... 2 The Definition of Hearsay
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
Legislative Process Spring 2009 Professor Carolyn Shapiro SYLLABUS
Legislative Process Spring 2009 Professor Carolyn Shapiro SYLLABUS The syllabus is divided by assignment, not by class. Some assignments will likely take more than one class period to cover; some may take
Impeachment by attack on character for truthfulness. 608(a) opinion and reputation evidence 608(b) specific acts -- prior convictions
Impeachment by attack on character for truthfulness 608(a) opinion and reputation evidence 608(b) specific acts 609 -- prior convictions 1 Question. Rule 608(b) codifies the Oswalt rule prohibiting use
Methods of impeachment. Contradiction Inconsistent statement Bad character for truthfulness Bias Lack of capacity or opportunity to observe
Methods of impeachment Contradiction Inconsistent statement Bad character for truthfulness Bias Lack of capacity or opportunity to observe 1 Oswalt rule: Extrinsic evidence is not admissible to impeach
Case4:09-cv CW Document75 Filed06/11/09 Page1 of 6
Case:0-cv-00-CW Document Filed0//0 Page of Michael G. Woods, # Timothy J. Buchanan, # 00 McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & P.O. Box River Park Place East Fresno, CA 0- Telephone: () -0 Facsimile: ()
Evidence: The Objection Method Fifth Edition
Evidence: The Objection Method Fifth Edition (2016 Pub.3052) Evidence: The Objection Method Fifth Edition Dennis D. Prater Connell Teaching Professor of Law, University of Kansas School of Law Daniel J.
Evidence 213B Professor Schroeder (Spring 2014) Reading List / Course Assignments (Rev. 01/02/2014) Page 1
Reading List / Course Assignments (Rev. 01/02/2014) Page 1 Class Schedule Spring 2014 Class# Day Date 1 Mon 13-Jan 2 Wed 15-Jan HOLIDAY Mon 20-Jan 3 Wed 22-Jan 4 Mon 27-Jan 5 Wed 29-Jan 6 Mon 3-Feb 7 Wed
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED April 3, 2007 v No. 262858 St. Joseph Circuit Court LISA ANN DOLPH-HOSTETTER, LC No. 00-010340-FC Defendant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ORDER. Presently before the court is the Noorda defendants 1 motion in limine no. 1 to exclude Aaron
Allstate Insurance Company et al vs. Nassiri, et al., Doc. 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., v. Plaintiffs, OBTEEN N. NASSIRI, D.C., et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO ORDER AND REASONS
McCrary v. John W. Stone Oil Distributor, L.L.C. Doc. 58 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JAMES MCCRARY CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 14-880 JOHN W. STONE OIL DISTRIBUTOR, L.L.C. SECTION
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY. STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) v. ) ID No: ) BRADFORD JONES )
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) v. ) ID No: 0206007051 ) BRADFORD JONES ) Submitted: June 11, 2003 Decided: July 2, 2003 MEMORANDUM OPINION
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
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,
CRIMINAL LAW I SYLLABUS (January, 2014 version)
Dean Adams Spring Semester 2014 Telephone: 714-459-1140 e-mail: weadams@wsulaw.edu Office Hours: TH 1-6 PM CRIMINAL LAW I SYLLABUS (January, 2014 version) This Syllabus will be revised during the semester.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Plaintiff, CRIMINAL NO
2:12-cr-20218-SFC-MKM Doc # 221 Filed 12/02/13 Pg 1 of 15 Pg ID 1125 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Plaintiff, CRIMINAL NO. 12-20218
Daubert and Rule 702: Effectively Presenting and Challenging Experts in Federal Court
Daubert and Rule 702: Effectively Presenting and Challenging Experts in Federal Court January 26, 2010 Moderator: Nicole Skarstad American Lawyer Media nskarstad@alm.com John L. Tate, Panelist A member
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION. CITY OF FINDLAY, et al.l, Defendant.
Hernandez v. City of Findlay et al Doc. 60 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION ROBERTO HERNANDEZ, -vs- CITY OF FINDLAY, et al.l, KATZ, J. Plaintiff, Case
Evidentiary Standards in the State of Illinois: The Interpretation and Implementation of Supreme Court Opinions
Evidentiary Standards in the State of Illinois: The Interpretation and Implementation of Supreme Court Opinions Barbara Figari Illinois Conference for Students of Political Science 1 Criminal cases are
Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael. Case Background
Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael Albert J. Grudzinskas, Jr., JD The U.S. Supreme Court considered an appeal by the defendant, Kumho Tire, in a products liability action. The appeal resulted from a ruling
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
A Student s Guide to Hearsay REVISED 4th Edition
A Student s Guide to Hearsay REVISED 4th Edition LexisNexis Law School Publishing Advisory Board William Araiza Professor of Law Brooklyn Law School Lenni B. Benson Professor of Law & Associate Dean for
CASE NO. 1D Bill McCabe, Longwood, and Tonya A. Oliver, Trinity, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA WILLIAM BOOKER, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D14-4812
Syllabus for Criminal Law, Spring Professor Sandra Guerra Thompson BLB, office
Syllabus for Criminal Law, Spring 2015 Professor Sandra Guerra Thompson email: sgthompson@central.uh.edu 122 BLB, 713-743-2134-office 713-661-5422-home office Office Hours Monday 1:30-2:30 or by appointment.
Legislation and Regulation
Legislation and Regulation Professor Bagley Winter Term 2018 Welcome to Legislation and Regulation. The class will meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 1:00-2:15 and on Wednesday from 1:20-2:35 in 1225
US Supreme Court. Texas Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. 14 State Appellate Courts
US Supreme Court Texas Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals 5th Circuit Court of Appeals 14 State Appellate Courts State County Court / District Court Federal District Court US Legal System Common
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Pettit v. Hill Doc. 60 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA CHARLES A. PETTIT, SR., as the PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE of the ESTATE OF CHARLES A. PETTIT, JR., Plaintiff,
H. R. 748 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 109TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION
I TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION H. R. To amend title 1, United States Code, to prevent the transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws relating to abortion, and for other purposes. IN THE HOUSE
PRINCE 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
Case 1:06-cv Document 695 Filed 02/23/10 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Case 1:06-cv-03173 Document 695 Filed 02/23/10 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION KATHLEEN PAINE, as Guardian of the Estate of CHRISTINA
Changes to Rule 702(a): Has North Carolina Codified Daubert and Does It Matter? During the past legislative session, the General Assembly changed Rule
Changes to Rule 702(a): Has North Carolina Codified Daubert and Does It Matter? During the past legislative session, the General Assembly changed Rule 702(a) that deals with the admissibility of expert
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.
Evidence: The Objection Method Fourth Edition
Evidence: The Objection Method Fourth Edition LexisNexis Law School Publishing Advisory Board William Araiza Professor of Law Brooklyn Law School Lenni B. Benson Professor of Law & Associate Dean for Professional
EVIDENCE INTRODUCTION TO EVIDENCE LAW I.
EVIDENCE INTRODUCTION TO EVIDENCE LAW I. Nature and Development of Law a. law is largely cultural; based on Anglo-American concept of trial i. But not the only way to do things; e.g. could just listen
PlainSite. Legal Document. Missouri Western District Court Case No. 4:14-cv BCW Federal Trade Commission v. BF Labs, Inc. et al.
PlainSite Legal Document Missouri Western District Court Case No. 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Federal Trade Commission v. BF Labs, Inc. et al Document 175 View Document View Docket A joint project of Think Computer
I. Basic Concepts A. Overview of the Federal Rules of Evidence
I. Basic Concepts A. Overview of the Federal Rules of Evidence 1. Purposes of FRE- the federal rules of evidence are effective for any federal court in the US, rules were adopted to establish uniformity
Lighting Up the Post- Daubert Landscape?
General Electric Co. v. Joiner: Lighting Up the Post- Daubert Landscape? Albert J. Grudzinskas, Jr., JD, and Kenneth L. Appelbaum, MD The U.S. Supreme Court considered an appeal by the defendant, General
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
J.B. v. Missouri Baptist Hospital of Sullivan et al Doc. 84 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION J.B., a minor, by and through his ) Next Friend, R ICKY BULLOCK, )
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: U. S. (1999) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 98 5881 BENJAMIN LEE LILLY, PETITIONER v. VIRGINIA ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA [June 10, 1999] CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST,
The Royalty Owners file this Response to Gertrude Petroleum Corporation s ( GPC )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION GERTRUDE PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant, vs. Civil Action No. 98-0001 ROGER J. ROYALTY, et.
Case 1:03-cr PBS Document 1096 Filed 11/28/2005 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:03-cr-10329-PBS Document 1096 Filed 11/28/2005 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) ) v. ) CRIMINAL NO. 03-10329-PBS ) AMANDO MONTEIRO,
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS POLICY. Table of Contents Page
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS POLICY Title: REGIONAL COORDINATOR ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Doc ID: PS6008 Revision: 0.09 Committee: Professional Standards Written by: C. Wilson, R. Anderson, J. Smith Date Established:
Case 2:11-cv RBS -DEM Document 94 Filed 10/31/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 2118
Case 2:11-cv-00546-RBS -DEM Document 94 Filed 10/31/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 2118 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division CORBIN BERNSEN Plaintiff, v. ACTION NO.
THE POLITICS of ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. V / V Spring Broadway, Rm Broadway, Rm 726
THE POLITICS of ADMINISTRATIVE LAW V53.0354/ V62.0354 Spring 2006 Professor Christine B. Harrington Teaching Assistant: Leila Kawar 726 Broadway, Rm 768 726 Broadway, Rm 726 Christine.Harrington@nyu.edu
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
Guffy v. DeGuerin et al Doc. 138 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED June 19, 2017 David
Daubert Issues For Footwear Examiners
Daubert Issues For Footwear Examiners International Association for Identification San Diego 2007 Cindy Homer, MS D-ABC, CFWE, CCSA Forensic Scientist Maine State Police Crime Laboratory Objectives Give
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ANDREW V. KOCHERA, Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS vs. Case No. 14-0029-SMY-SCW GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This
Daubert on a Tilted Playing Field
Daubert on a Tilted Playing Field Roger C. Park PART I Several commentators have suggested that standards governing admission of scientific evidence should be different in criminal and civil cases and
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
National FFA Delegate Process
The first Delegate Business Session of the 87th National FFA Convention and Expo was called to order at 10:38 a.m. on Thursday, October 30, 2014. National FFA President Brian Walsh served as the presiding
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 27, 2011 v No. 295570 Oakland Circuit Court JOSEPH ALBERTO GENTILE, LC No. 2007-218331-FH Defendant-Appellant.
United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
Case 4:15-cv-00127-ALM Document 93 Filed 08/02/16 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1828 United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION STING SOCCER OPERATIONS GROUP LP; ET. AL. v. CASE NO.
Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3) The statement against interest exception.
Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3) The statement against interest exception. 1 The declarations against interest exception is sometimes confused with the exemption for admissions. (Note: Under the restyled rules,
scc Doc 860 Filed 03/06/12 Entered 03/06/12 16:37:03 Main Document Pg 1 of 14
10-15973-scc Doc 860 Filed 03/06/12 Entered 03/06/12 163703 Main Document Pg 1 of 14 Peter A. Ivanick Allison H. Weiss 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019 Tel (212) 259-8000 Fax (212)
STATE V. TONEY, 2002-NMSC-003, 131 N.M. 558, 40 P.3d 1002 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Respondent, vs. MICHAEL TONEY, Defendant-Petitioner.
1 STATE V. TONEY, 2002-NMSC-003, 131 N.M. 558, 40 P.3d 1002 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Respondent, vs. MICHAEL TONEY, Defendant-Petitioner. Docket No. 26,618 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 2002-NMSC-003,
I. Basic Concepts A. Overview of the Federal Rules of Evidence
I. Basic Concepts A. Overview of the Federal Rules of Evidence 1. Purposes of FRE- the federal rules of evidence are effective for any federal court in the US, rules were adopted to establish uniformity
Evidence. An Overview of Relevance and Hearsay: A Nine Step Analytical Guide
Evidence In this subject, CALI has Lessons, Podcasts and elangdell Press Texts. There are also Casebook Correlations available on the CALI website to aid you in assigning lessons. CALI Lessons: An Overview
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION. Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO.
Stallion Heavy Haulers, LP v. Lincoln General Insurance Company Doc. 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION STALLION HEAVY HAULERS, LP, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL
Syllabus (Preliminary) Election Law: Voting Rights, Districts and Dollars
Syllabus (Preliminary) Election Law: Voting Rights, Districts and Dollars The goal of this course is to introduce students to the legal underpinnings of today s democratic politics, the historical struggle
Legislation & Regulation (Section 4) Fall 2013 Professor Stephenson Wed-Fri 8:20-9:40, [WCC 1015] SYLLABUS
![Legislation & Regulation (Section 4) Fall 2013 Professor Stephenson Wed-Fri 8:20-9:40, [WCC 1015] SYLLABUS](/thumbs/91/105454199.jpg "Legislation & Regulation (Section 4) Fall 2013 Professor Stephenson Wed-Fri 8:20-9:40, [WCC 1015] SYLLABUS")
Legislation & Regulation (Section 4) Fall 2013 Professor Stephenson Wed-Fri 8:20-9:40, [WCC 1015] Course Description: This course is an introduction to lawmaking in the modern administrative state. It
Jones on Evidence: Civil and Criminal 7th ed.
Penn State Law elibrary Books Faculty Works 2004 Jones on Evidence: Civil and Criminal 7th ed. Anne T. McKenna Penn State Law, atm19@psu.edu Clifford S. Fishman The Catholic University of America Follow
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
CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL WITNESS
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW 2013 THE CAR CRASH SEMINAR FROM SIGN-UP TO SETTLEMENT July 25-26, 2013 AT&T Conference Center and Hotel at UT Austin, Texas CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL WITNESS
Overview of Admissibility of Expert Testimony
Overview of Admissibility of Expert Testimony Md. Rule 5-702: Expert testimony may be admitted, in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if the court determines that the testimony will assist the trier
Before MICHEL, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 02-1155 MICRO CHEMICAL, INC., Plaintiff- Appellee, v. LEXTRON, INC. and TURNKEY COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants- Appellants. Gregory A. Castanias,
CONTENTS. 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
Legislation & Regulation (Section 2) Fall 2012 Professor Stephenson Wed-Fri 8:20-9:40, WCC 1010 SYLLABUS
Legislation & Regulation (Section 2) Fall 2012 Professor Stephenson Wed-Fri 8:20-9:40, WCC 1010 Course Description: This course is an introduction to lawmaking in the modern administrative state. It will
The admissibility of alcohol test results from the Smart Start SMART Mobile Device in Probation Violation Hearings
The admissibility of alcohol test results from the Smart Start SMART Mobile Device in Probation Violation Hearings October 2017 Marc Picker, Esq., Judge peggy Hora (Ret.), David Wallace, Esq., and Judge
Interpreting the Federal Rules of Evidence: The Use of Abuse of the Advisory Committee Notes
Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Law Reviews 6-1-1995 Interpreting the Federal Rules
Misinterpretation and Misapplication of Kumho Tire to Business Valuation
Misinterpretation and Misapplication of Kumho Tire to Business Valuation Chartwell Litigation Trust v. Addus Healthcare, Inc. (In re Med Diversified) Authored By: ROBERT JAMES CIMASI, MHA, ASA, CBA, AVA,
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PIKE COUNTY
[Cite as State v. Moore, 165 Ohio App.3d 538, 2006-Ohio-114.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PIKE COUNTY The STATE OF OHIO, : : Case No. 05CA733 Appellant, : : Released: January
CHARLES W. EHRHARDT 606 Middlebrooks Circle Tallahassee, Florida Office: (850) Home: (850)
CHARLES W. EHRHARDT 606 Middlebrooks Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Office: (850) 644-5240 Home: (850) 386-5251 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 2007- present Emeritus Professor, Florida State University, College
LexisNexis Digital Library
www.jenkinslaw.org Research Assistance: research@jenkinslaw.org 215.574.1505 LexisNexis Digital Library Rev. 11/18/2015 Title Subjects 2014 Annotation Citator to the Code of Virginia Deskbook, Non-, Statutes,
Qualifying a Witness as an Expert Using the Daubert Standard
Qualifying a Witness as an Expert Using the Daubert Standard The focus is not about qualifications of expert The focus is on the admissibility of the expert s opinion Michael H. Gottesman, Jason Daubert's
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Criminal No. 99-215 ) JOSEPH P. MINERD ) GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MAHENDRA DALMIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED February 6, 2007 v No. 264088 Oakland Circuit Court CARL PALFFY, M.D., EMERGENCY LC No. 03-052350-NH PHYSICIANS ASSOCIATES,
Written materials by Jonathan D. Sasser
Power Point Presentation By Rachel Scott Decker Ward Black Law 208 West Wendover Avenue Greensboro, North Carolina 27401 (336) 273-3812 www.wardblacklaw.com Written materials by Jonathan D. Sasser Since
THE CODE AND RULES OF EVIDENCE COMMITTEE
Majority Report THE CODE AND RULES OF EVIDENCE COMMITTEE To: Timothy M. Moore, Chair From: Wayne Hogan Date: May 18, 2015 MAJORITY REPORT OF THE CODE AND RULES OF EVIDENCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDING AGAINST
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. I. Introduction and Background
Queen v. W.I.C., Inc. et al Doc. 200 JORDAN QUEEN IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 14-CV-519-DRH-SCW W.I.C., INC. d/b/a SNIPER TREESTANDS,
RENDERED: November 7, 1997; 10:00 a.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED NO. 96-CA-1594-MR COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY OPINION AFFIRMING * * * * *
RENDERED: November 7, 1997; 10:00 a.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED NO. 96-CA-1594-MR CHESTER SHIPP APPELLANT v. APPEAL FROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE WILLIAM M. HALL, JUDGE CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 95-CR-000063
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1 1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PRESIDIO COMPONENTS, INC., Plaintiff, vs. AMERICAN TECHNICAL CERAMICS CORP., Defendant. CASE NO. 1-CV-1-H (BGS) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ROME DIVISION
Case 4:05-cv-00201-HLM Document 131 Filed 07/20/2006 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ROME DIVISION COMMON CAUSE / GEORGIA, ) et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) CIVIL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ORDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION Flexuspine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc. CASE NO. 6:15-cv-201-JRG-KNM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER Before the Court is Defendant Globus
Order on Motion to Exclude Testimony of David A. Duffus (JAMES & JACKSON LLC)
Georgia State University College of Law Reading Room Georgia Business Court Opinions 5-7-2009 Order on Motion to Exclude Testimony of David A. Duffus (JAMES & JACKSON LLC) Alice D. Bonner Superior Court
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT ALABAMA S NEW RULE 702 DAUBERT BASED ADMISSIBILITY STANDARD FOR EXPERTS
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT ALABAMA S NEW RULE 702 DAUBERT BASED ADMISSIBILITY STANDARD FOR EXPERTS Dana G. Taunton Mandy L. Pinkard BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street
Impeachment with prior convictions This is an opinion poll about what the law should be, not what it is.
Impeachment with prior convictions This is an opinion poll about what the law should be, not what it is. In general, it would be good policy to allow the prosecution to impeach the testimony a person accused
DEPOSITIONS, TRIAL TESTIMONIES, COURT HEARINGS
DEPOSITIONS, TRIAL TESTIMONIES, COURT HEARINGS 1. Smoot vs. Mackler (medical malpractice case); Circuit Court the County Pulaski, Virginia, Testified at trial, December 28, 1984. 2. United States General
Case 1:05-cv BNB-PAC Document 103 Filed 11/14/2006 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:05-cv-00478-BNB-PAC Document 103 Filed 11/14/2006 Page 1 of 14 Civil Action No. 05-cv-00478-BNB-PAC EDWARD J. KERBER, NELSON B. PHELPS, JOANNE WEST, NANCY A. MEISTER, THOMAS J. INGEMANN, JR., Individually,
CRAWFORD v. WASHINGTON: THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE REBORN
CRAWFORD v. WASHINGTON: THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE REBORN By Jonathan Grossman A. THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right... to be confronted with the witnesses
LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW (LAW 272) Fall 2016 Syllabus Instructor: Chris Costa Telephone: (703)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW (LAW 272) Fall 2016 Syllabus Instructor: Chris Costa Telephone: (703) 324-2642 Email: christopher.costa@fairfaxcounty.gov Class hours: Wednesdays, 6 to 7:50 p.m., Aug. 24 to Nov.30.
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,
Conflict of Laws - Jurisdiction of State Courts - Forum Non Conveniens
Louisiana Law Review Volume 16 Number 3 April 1956 Conflict of Laws - Jurisdiction of State Courts - Forum Non Conveniens William J. Doran Jr. Repository Citation William J. Doran Jr., Conflict of Laws
Criminal Law Prof. Philip Meyer Syllabus Fall Criminal Law (Seventh Edition), Joshua Dressler (ISBN: )
Criminal Law Prof. Philip Meyer Syllabus Fall 2018 Texts: Criminal Law (Seventh Edition), Joshua Dressler (ISBN: 978 0314279828) Understanding Criminal Law (Seventh Edition), Joshua Dressler (ISBN: 978
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 541 U. S. (2004) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 02 9410 MICHAEL D. CRAWFORD, PETITIONER v. WASHINGTON ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON [March 8, 2004] CHIEF JUSTICE