The Most Common Foundations for Exhibits Francis J. Carney

Similar documents
SIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE

2016 FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version)

FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version)

EMPIRION EVIDENCE ORDINANCE

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

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

Thinking Evidentially

American Mock Trial Association MIDLANDS RULES OF EVIDENCE

Rules of Evidence (Abridged)

RULES OF EVIDENCE Pennsylvania Mock Trial Version 2003

Hearsay Exceptions Rules 803 and 804

2011 RULES OF EVIDENCE

Admissibility of Electronic Evidence

FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE 2018

The Admissibility of Child Hearsay Statements in Custody Litigation David Butler, Associate Circuit Judge

DELAWARE HIGH SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL RULES OF EVIDENCE

FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE 2019

INTRODUCTION OF EXHIBITS AT TRIAL THE BASICS

Evidentiary Issues in Children s Court. Children s Law Institute January 8, 2015

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2014

Federal Rules Of Evidence (2012)

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

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

Defendants Trial Brief - 1 -

California Bar Examination

California Bar Examination

Case 1:11-cv RJS Document 283 Filed 02/10/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

RULES OF EVIDENCE LEGAL STANDARDS

Contents. Dedication... v. About the Author... xvii. Acknowledgments... xix. Foreword... xxi. Preface... xxv A Note about Primary Sources...

v No Oakland Circuit Court

TIPS ON OFFERING EVIDENCE RELEVANCE

Keith Berkshire Berkshire Law Office, PLLC

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

TOP TEN NEW EVIDENCE RULES

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 5 November Appeal by plaintiff from judgment filed 29 August 2001 by

No. 85 February 28, IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

Utah Court Rules on Exhibits Francis J. Carney

I N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

EFFECTIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION TIPS LAWRENCE J. WHITNEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW

TRIAL DOCUMENTS PROVING, TENDERING AND CROSS-EXAMINATION

Why? Test Specific Knowledge Course Coverage Test Critical Reading Objective Grading

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

Demonstrative Evidence

Federal Rules of Evidence ARTICLE I - GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

Evidentiary Challenges in Divorce Cases: From Writings and Photos to Text Messages and Social Media

PENOBSCOT COUNTY. Hearing was held on the defendant's motion to suppress and memoranda filed

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

DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE UNDER THE RULES: THE ADMISSABLE AND INADMISSABLE

MIDDLE SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL SIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE

Essentials of Demonstrative Evidence

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

FULL OUTLINE. Bar Exam Doctor BAREXAMDOCTOR.COM. EVIDENCE

Written materials by Jonathan D. Sasser

ARTICLE IX. AUTHENTICATION AND IDENTIFICATION

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ER 904 is Scary - Five Practice Tips for Using and Opposing ER 904 Submissions Robert Dawson

FORENSIC EXERCISE. JTIP Handout: Lesson 28 Hearsay. b. Is consistent with the declarant s WHAT IS HEARSAY?

THE DEVELOPING STANDARDS FOR AUTHENTICATING ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE. Kathryn Mary Kary Pratt

Knowledge Objectives (2 of 2) Skills Objectives. Introduction. Legal Considerations During Investigation 12/20/2013. Legal Considerations

Docket No. 31,080 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 2008-NMSC-063, 145 N.M. 280, 196 P.3d 1286 November 7, 2008, Filed

What if the other parent is not making child support payments? The court will consider whether a parent is helping to support their child.

Case 1:17-cr ABJ Document 413 Filed 09/12/18 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STATE OF VERMONT PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD

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

EVIDENCE, FOUNDATIONS AND OBJECTIONS. Laurie Vahey, Esq.

PART III Discovery CHAPTER 8. Overview of the Discovery Process KEY POINTS THE NATURE OF DISCOVERY THE EXTENT OF ALLOWABLE DISCOVERY

PREPARING FOR AND TAKING DEPOSITIONS IN A PERSONAL INJURY CASE

Wert v. Mesesick, No CnC (Katz, J., Apr. 7, 2005)

SUPPLEMENT TO MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL UNITED STATES MILITARY RULES OF EVIDENCE (2012 EDITION)

Wrongful Death Medical Malpractice Lawsuits: Standing, Damages, Doctor vs. Hospital Liability

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

APPENDIX II. INTERROGATORY FORMS. Form A. Uniform Interrogatories to be Answered by Plaintiff in All Personal Injury

by Robert J. Permutt, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Lead, Nationwide Insurance Company Mirna M. Santiago, Esq.

WHAT IS A DEPOSITION?

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS. l l L INTRODUCTION. n. BACKGROUND

2018 IL App (3d) Opinion filed October 17, 2018 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT

Evidence Presented by: Ervin Gonzalez, Esq.

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

Do I have your permission to record this? Taking an effective recorded statement of an injured worker.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF

SEEKING ADMISSION OF POLICE REPORTS AND WITNESS STATEMENTS CONTAINED THEREIN: A DUAL LEVEL HEARSAY CHALLENGE

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

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

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

The Nuts & Bolts of the Rules of Evidence

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

EVIDENCE CALIFORNIA DISTINCTIONS Bar Exam Outline

Chapter 8C. Evidence Code. 8C-1. Rules of Evidence. The North Carolina Rules of Evidence are as follows:

APPENDIX II. INTERROGATORY FORMS. Form A. Uniform Interrogatories to be Answered by Plaintiff in All Personal Injury

Evidence. I) Relevance

CITIBANK, N.A., Plaintiff/Appellee, No. 1 CA-CV

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA COMMITTEE ON RULES OF EVIDENCE. Proposed Amendment of Rule of Evidence 803.1(1)

A JUDGE S PERSPECTIVE ON EVIDENCE. (Basic Tools of Your New Trade) W. David Lee. Senior Resident Superior Court Judge.

California Bar Examination

The scope of the Alabama Rules of Evidence is stated in Rule 101: So it makes some sense to go straight to Rule 1101, even though it is

City and County of Denver CAREER SERVICE HEARING OFFICE PROCEDURAL GUIDE. Published and Distributed by:

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

Transcription:

The Most Common Foundations for Exhibits Francis J. Carney 1. Photographs a. Establish familiarity with scene depicted. b. Mark and show photo. c. Establish that the photo accurately depicts scene. Shiozawa v. Duke, UT App 40, 21 (exact date of photo not needed). d. Note: it is not necessary to call the photographer to lay the foundation. See, State v. Purcell, 731 P.2d 243, 245 (Utah 1985). But there are situations in which the attorney may wish to do so as, for example, where there is an issue on the accuracy of the depiction. e. Note: gruesome photographs may well be accurate and relevant, but excluded under the balancing test of Rule 403. State v. Cloud, 722 P.2d 750 (Utah 1986); State v. Valdez, 748 P.2d. 1050 (Utah 1987). 2. Business Records (Medical Records) a. Note: much of the foundation on records of a regularly-conducted activity can now be established through a simple declaration of the records custodian under Rules 902(11) (as to authenticity) and 803(6)(D) (as to hearsay): i. Rule 902. The following items of evidence are self-authenticating; they require no extrinsic evidence of authenticity in order to be admitted: (11) Certified Domestic Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. The original or a copy of a domestic record that meets the requirements of Rule 803(6)(A)-(C), as shown by a certification of the custodian or another qualified person that must be signed in a manner that, if falsely made, would subject the signer to criminal penalty under the laws where the certification was signed. Before the trial or hearing, the proponent must give an adverse party reasonable written notice of the intent to offer the record and must make the record and certification available for inspection so that the party has a fair opportunity to challenge them. ii. Rule 803(6): Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis if: Carney: Common Foundations- 1

(A) the record was made at or near the time by or from information transmitted by someone with knowledge; (B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit; (C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity; (D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and (E) neither the source of information nor the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness. b. It is the unusual case where a records custodian needs to be called to establish the correct foundation. If this becomes necessary, these are the steps: i. Call the custodian or other qualified person. ii. iii. iv. Have the custodian explain his job. Show that he is familiar with the company s routines on records. Show that the company makes its records at or near the time of the events. v. Have the business record marked and show it to the other side. vi. vii. viii. ix. Have the custodian identify the exhibit as a record of which he has custody. Show that this record was made in the ordinary course of the business. Have custodian explain who provided the information on the exhibit. Have custodian explain that it was that person s duty to gather the information. x. Offer the exhibit. c. See 803(7) for absence of entries. d. Hansen v. Heath, 852 P.2d 977 (Utah 1993): the treating doctor, who created the Carney: Common Foundations- 2

Carney: Common Foundations- 3 chart entry, was not available to lay foundation under business records exception. However, Rule 803(6) allows any qualified witness to lay the foundation, not just the custodian or the person who created the record. e. State v. Bertul, 664 P.2d 1181 (Utah 1983)- Foundation for business records: kept in regular course of the business, not as part of preparation for litigation. 3. Business Records Summaries a. The underlying records themselves qualify as business records under Rule 803(6). b. The records are too voluminous to be conveniently examined in court. c. The originals are available. d. Rule 1006. Summaries to Prove Content The proponent may use a summary, chart, or calculation to prove the content of voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs that cannot be conveniently examined in court. The proponent must make the originals or duplicates available for examination or copying, or both, by other parties at a reasonable time or place. And the court may order the proponent to produce them in court. e. Trolley Square Asso. v Nielson, 886 P.2d 61 (Ut. App. 1994). Summaries may be admissible under Rule 1006 even if they do not qualify themselves as "business records" but must qualify under Rule 1006 (voluminous/prior notice) and the underlying records being summarized must themselves qualify as business records under Rule 803(6). International Harvester v. Pioneer Tractor, 626 P.2d 418, 422 (Utah 1981). And they must be made available in advance to opposing party. f. A good analysis on the limitations with the use of summaries under Rule 1006 is found in Sunridge Development v. RB&G Engineering, 2013 UT App 146, 19-21. 4. Models, Anatomical Diagrams, Etc. a. Witness could use visual aid to explain testimony. b. Aid depicts a certain subject. c. Witness familiar with subject. d. Aid is an accurate enough depiction of the subject.

5. Non-Representative Exhibits (Charts, Etc.) a. The exhibit will assist the witness in explaining her testimony. b. The exhibit is sufficiently accurate to illustrate her testimony. 6. Re-Enactments, Crash Tests, Etc. a. Subject is relevant. b. Tests were conducted under conditions substantially similar to actual occurrence. c. Presentation will not consume undue amounts of time, confuse the issues, or mislead the jury. d. Whitehead v. AMC, 801 P.2d 920, 923 (Utah 1990). 7. Police Reports (Civil Cases) a. Call the police officer. b. Establish that he made a report. c. Have officer explain how and why reports are prepared. d. Have the report marked. e. Show it to the other side. f. Show it to the officer and have him confirm that this is his report. g. Offer the report. h. Rule 803(8) Public Records. A record or statement of a public office if: (A) it sets out: (i) the office s activities; (ii) a matter observed while under a legal duty to report, but not including, in a criminal case, a matter observed by law-enforcement personnel; or Carney: Common Foundations- 4

(iii) in a civil case or against the government in a criminal case, factual findings from a legally authorized investigation; and (B) neither the source of information nor other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness. i. See 803(10) for absence of public record entries. 8. Hearsay Within Hearsay a. Just because a record qualifies for admission does not mean every entry in the record is admissible. b. Example: The discharge summary from a hospital was dictated by defendant. It describes the course of events for plaintiff s treatment for her dog bite. But it also contains this statement: "Shortly after the bite, I had warned her that there was a small chance of rabies infection and suggested the rabies vaccination as an option. She refused." c. Is this admissible? It's hearsay (defendant s out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the claim that plaintiff refused a vaccination) within hearsay (the discharge summary). While the discharge summary may come in under 803(6), it's not necessarily true that this statement will. i. It does not fit under 803(4): Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment. A statement that: (A) is made for and is reasonably pertinent to medical diagnosis or treatment; and (B) describes medical history; past or present symptoms or sensations; their inception; or their general cause. [It is not a statement that plaintiff made.] ii. iii. It does not fit under 803(3): Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. A statement of the declarant s then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) or emotional, sensory, or physical condition (such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the validity or terms of the declarant s will. Nor does it fit under 803(5): (5) 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. Carney: Common Foundations- 5

iv. Conclusion: the "warning" statement by defendant may well need to be deleted from the discharge summary before admission. 9. Further Reading on Foundations a. My favorite books on foundations and objections to them are both published by James Publishing in Costa Mesa: ASHLEY S. LIPSON, IS IT ADMISSIBLE? (James Publishing, Inc., 2007) GORDON P. CLEARY and JOHN A. TARANTINO, HOW TO LAY AND OPPOSE TRIAL EVIDENCE FOUNDATIONS (James Publishing, 2011) http://www.jamespublishing.com/ b. I'd also recommend a volume on Utah-specific evidence, either Kimball and Boyce's, UTAH EVIDENCE LAW (Kimball & Boyce Publishing, 2004) or MANGRUM AND BENSON ON UTAH EVIDENCE (Thomson Reuters Westlaw, 2012). c. Finally, there's the reliable old standby, Professor Edward J. Imwinkelried's th EVIDENTIARY FOUNDATIONS, (Matthew Bender, 8 Ed. 2012) FJC November 2012 (Updated February 20, 2015) Carney: Common Foundations- 6