Keith Berkshire Berkshire Law Office, PLLC

Similar documents
EMPIRION EVIDENCE ORDINANCE

THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR JUSTICE AND

SIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE

J. Max Wawrik Nancy Rosado Colon Law 16 Spring 2017

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

TIPS ON OFFERING EVIDENCE RELEVANCE

TRIAL OBJECTIONS. Considerations Effect on the jury Scrutinous Judiciously Effective/Disruptive

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

Thinking Evidentially

FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version)

Evidence Presented by: Ervin Gonzalez, Esq.

Oklahoma High School Mock Trial Program RULES OF EVIDENCE ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS. Rule 101. Scope

2016 FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version)

Admissibility of Electronic Evidence

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

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

FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE 2018

RULES OF EVIDENCE Pennsylvania Mock Trial Version 2003

Case 1:17-cr KBF Document 819 Filed 06/11/18 Page ORDERED. 1 of 8 GUIDELINES REGARDING APPROPRIATE USE OF 302 FORMS IN CRIMINAL TRIALS

2011 RULES OF EVIDENCE

EVIDENCE, FOUNDATIONS AND OBJECTIONS. Laurie Vahey, Esq.

DELAWARE HIGH SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL RULES OF EVIDENCE

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

California Bar Examination

Rule 613: That s not what you said before! By: Andy Moorman Assistant U.S. Attorney

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

Case Preparation and Presentation: A Guide for Arbitration Advocates and Arbitrators

Objections DEFINITIONS

Federal Rules Of Evidence (2012)

Example: (1) Your honor, (2) I object (3) to that question (4) because it is a compound question.

Argumentative Questions (Badgering) Assuming Facts Not in Evidence (Extrapolation) Irrelevant Evidence Hearsay Opinion Lack of Personal Knowledge

California Bar Examination

Case5:08-cv PSG Document498 Filed08/15/13 Page1 of 6

Insight from Carlton Fields

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

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

Non-Scientific Expert Testimony in Child Abuse Trials

WHEN IS IT PROPER TO OBJECT IN A DEPOSITION OR TO INSTRUCT A WITNESS NOT TO ANSWER? by Mark A. Lienhoop September 4, 1996

OBJECTION YOUR HONOUR!

Insight from Carlton Fields Jorden Burt

Impeachment by omission. Impeachment for inconsistent statement. The Evidence Dance. Opening Statement Tip Twice

PREPARING FOR AND TAKING DEPOSITIONS IN A PERSONAL INJURY CASE

Being an Expert Witness

Book containing this chapter and any forms referenced herein is available for purchase at or by calling

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES GENERAL

MIDDLE SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL SIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

Federal Rules of Evidence ARTICLE I - GENERAL PROVISIONS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

PREPARING FOR TRIAL. 3. Opponent s experts identified, complete Rule 26 responses received and, if possible and necessary, experts have been deposed.

American Mock Trial Association MIDLANDS RULES OF EVIDENCE

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

Case4:07-cv PJH Document1171 Filed05/29/12 Page1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Criminal Evidence 6th Edition

TRIAL EVIDENCE: MAKING AND MEETING OBJECTIONS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Evidence Brown Spring I. A. 1. a. i. I. INTRODUCTION

SIMULATED MBE ANALYSIS: EVIDENCE PROFESSOR ROBERT PUSHAW PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

Defendant's Motion in Limine re Inadmissible Hearsay and Regarding Certain Irrelevant Testimony

TOP TEN NEW EVIDENCE RULES

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON January 20, 2004 Session

New Jersey Rules of Evidence Article VI - Witnesses

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION ALLAN THOMAS CIVIL ACTION NO JUDGE ROBERT G.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ABOTA MOTIONS IN LIMINE SEMINAR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION. Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER

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

IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH : : : : : : : : : : : :

Essentials of Demonstrative Evidence

Case 1:14-md JMF Document 2018 Filed 01/06/16 Page 1 of 12

Case 3:16-md VC Document 2866 Filed 02/28/19 Page 1 of 7

Adding a Little Bit of Hollywood to Your Trial

TRIAL COURT JUDGE AND ATTORNEY STUDY GUIDE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT GREENEVILLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA STANDING ORDER FOR CIVIL JURY TRIALS BEFORE DISTRICT JUDGE JON S.

2007 WL United States District Court, S.D. California.

California Bar Examination

TAKING AND DEFENDING DEPOSITION September 26, :00-1:00 p.m. Presenter: Thomasina F. Moore, Esq.

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

Demonstrative Evidence

TRIAL ADVOCACY - FALL 2005

Minnesota Rules of Evidence [Relevant Extracts Full Rules here] ARTICLE 7. OPINIONS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY. Rule 701. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witness

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

PlainSite. Legal Document. Missouri Eastern District Court Case No. 4:09-cv Jo Ann Howard and Associates, P.C. et al v.

Rules of Evidence (Abridged)

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA 1983 SESSION CHAPTER 701 HOUSE BILL 96 AN ACT TO SIMPLIFY AND CODIFY THE RULES OF EVIDENCE.

CRIMINAL PRE-TRIAL BEST PRACTICES

ALI-ABA Training Materials. from ALI-ABA s. Immigration Court Hearing by the American Law Institute. All rights reserved.

Rule 605. Competency of judge as witness. NC General Statutes - Chapter 8C Article 6 1

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF

DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE UNDER THE RULES: THE ADMISSABLE AND INADMISSABLE

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT

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

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

California Bar Examination

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

Section 1: Statement of Purpose Section 2: Voluntary Discovery Section 3: Discovery by Order of the Court... 2

STATE'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING COMPUTER ANIMATION

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Case 3:01-cv AWT Document 143 Filed 03/26/2008 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT : : : : : : :

Transcription:

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: (1) if the ruling admits evidence, a party, on the record: (A) timely objects or moves to strike; and (B) states the specific ground, unless it was apparent from the context; or (2) if the ruling excludes evidence, a party informs the court of its substance by an offer of proof, unless the substance was apparent from the context. (b) Not Needing to Renew an Objection or Offer of Proof. Once the court rules definitively on the record--either before or at trial--a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal. (c) Court's Statement About the Ruling; Directing an Offer of Proof. The court may make any statement about the character or form of the evidence, the objection made, and the ruling. The court may direct that an offer of proof be made in question-and-answer form.

Purpose 1. Exclude prejudicial evidence that is properly excludable. 2. Make a record for appeal. 3. Prevent unfair treatment of a witness. 4. Break up the testimony of an opposing witness, if you have a proper basis to object. 5. Reinforce your theme when objecting, unless the court does not allow speaking objections. Governed by Rules of Evidence If 2(B) Notice if filed Strict Compliance with Rules of Evidence, Except for 2(B)(3) Regardless of whether a notice is filed under subdivision 2(B)(1): a. Records of regularly conducted activity as defined in Rule 803(6), Arizona Rules of Evidence, may be admitted into evidence without testimony of a custodian or other qualified witness as to its authenticity if such document (i) appears complete and accurate on its face, (ii) appears to be relevant and reliable, and (iii) is seasonably disclosed and copies are provided at time of disclosure to all other parties and b. Any report, document, or standardized form required to be submitted to the court for the current hearing or trial may be considered as evidence if either filed with the court or admitted into evidence by the court. (different than In Re Marriage of Kells, 182 Ariz. 480, 897 P.2d 1366 (App. 1995))

If NO 2(B) Notice if filed all relevant evidence is admissible, provided, however, that the court shall exclude evidence if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, needless presentation of cumulative evidence, lack of reliability or failure to adequately and timely disclose same. This admissibility standard shall replace Rules 403, 602, 801-806, 901-903 and 1002-1005, Arizona Rules of Evidence. Except as provided in subdivision 2(B)(3). All remaining provisions of the Arizona Rules of Evidence apply. If NO 2(B) Notice if filed 403 Probative Value The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence 602 Personal Knowledge A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may consist of the witness's own testimony. This rule does not apply to a witness's expert testimony under Rule 703 801-806 - Hearsay 901-903 - Authentication 1002-1005 - Originals/Summaries

Anticipate the testimony of each witness opposing counsel is likely to call at trial and determine what objections you can properly raise. Some pre-trial orders require disclosure of all such witnesses, and procedural rules require disclosure of all testifying expert witnesses Anticipate all documents opposing counsel will likely seek to put into the record at trial and determine what objections you can properly raise. File motions in limine when appropriate, to alert the judge before trial of key evidentiary issues, provide the judge with authorities on those issues, and seek a ruling on those issues issue before trial. If opposing counsel intends to put deposition transcripts into evidence in lieu of live testimony (as when an out-of-state witness has been deposed and will not be appearing at trial, a witness who has been deposed cannot attend the trial, or opposing counsel seeks to put in an admission of a party from a deposition transcript), carefully review the transcript to determine what excerpts from that transcript are objectionable, for which you have preserved your right to object. Improper designation of transcript. Common objections as to the form of the question 1. leading question during direct examination, unless preliminary question or necessary to develop the witness s testimony [Rule 104(a), 611(c)] 2. compound 3. ambiguous or unintelligible 4. already asked and answered [Rule 611(a)] 5. argumentative 6. too general or calls for a narrative answer 7. misquotes the witness or misstates prior evidence 8. assumes facts not in evidence 9. nonresponsive [Rule 611a]

Objections as to the Substance: 1. irrelevant [Rule 401, 402] 2. immaterial 3. hearsay [Rule FRE 801, et seq.] 4. lack of personal knowledge [Rule 602] 5. no foundation 6. speculation 7. waste of time or cumulative [Rule 403] 8. prejudice outweighs probative value [Rule 403] 9. confusing or misleading [Rule 403] 10. inadmissible opinion of lay witness [Rule 701] 11. privileged [Rule 501, 502] 12. voir dire question beyond the scope of proper voir dire 13. cross beyond scope of direct [Rule 611(b)] 14. redirect beyond the scope of cross [Rule 611(b)] 15. improper impeachment [Rule 613] 16. prior consistent statement [Rule )(1)(B)] 17. testimony admissible only for a limited purpose [Rule 105] 18. answer beyond scope of question (motion to strike) Objections as to the Substance: 1. irrelevant [Rule 401, 402] 2. immaterial 3. waste of time or cumulative [Rule 403] 4. no foundation 5. prejudice outweighs probative value [Rule 403] 6. confusing or misleading [Rule 403] 7. inadmissible opinion of lay witness [Rule 701] 8. privileged 9. not authenticated [Rule 901, 902] 10. improper copy [Rule 1003] 11. public record not certified or insufficient supporting testimony [Rule 902(1) to (5) and 1005] 12. summary if underlying documents not made available as required [Rule 1006] 13. not disclosed as required by mandatory disclosure [ARFLP 49, 50] 14. not disclosed as required by a document request to which opposing counsel did not object in the discovery phase [Rule 49, 26.1] 15. not disclosed as required by a pre-trial order 16. document admissible only for a limited purpose [Rule 105]

When and Why Ask yourself what testimony and exhibits opposing counsel will want to get into the record and whether you have a proper basis to keep out any of it. Strategically, object to testimony and evidence that both hurts your case and is objectionable. By picking your shots, you will find that the judge is more likely to pay close attention to the objections you do raise. Listen carefully to the judge s words when ruling on your objections, and adjust your later objections based on what you learn. This does not mean that you refrain from protecting the record Listen Carefully Is the question improperly leading? Does it call for hearsay, irrelevant or immaterial testimony, assume facts not in evidence, or seek an answer for which there is no foundation? Is it otherwise objectionable? Be poised to stand and object before the witness can answer. Be prepared to object on more than one ground if you can. State your strongest objection first.

Documents When was document disclosed Did you object in JPTS? Have Minute Entry available Have disclosure statement available Experts Rule 702 A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. Definition A question that suggests the answer to the person being questioned. Rule 611(c) (c) Leading Questions. 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. While not always the case, questions which can be answered either Yes or No are considered leading. Examples Did he not.? Isn t it true that.? Won't you admit.?

Rule 401 Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action. Rules 602, 901(a) 602 - A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may consist of the witness's own testimony. This rule does not apply to a witness's expert testimony under Rule 703. 901(a) In General. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.

Rules 602, 701 Rule 602 - A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may consist of the witness's own testimony. This rule does not apply to a witness's expert testimony under Rule 703. Rule 701 - If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness's perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness's testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.