J. Max Wawrik Nancy Rosado Colon Law 16 Spring 2017

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

Keith Berkshire Berkshire Law Office, PLLC

FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE 2018

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

THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR JUSTICE AND

Chapter 4 Types of Evidence

EMPIRION EVIDENCE ORDINANCE

DISTRICT COURT EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO 885 E. Chambers Road P.O. Box 597 Eagle, Colorado Plaintiff: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO.

California Bar Examination

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

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

Admissibility of Electronic Evidence

SIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE

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

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

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

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

TIPS ON OFFERING EVIDENCE RELEVANCE

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

FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version)

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

Video Course Evaluation Form. My Name is: Name of Course: My Street address: Address:

Case 1:14-cr JB Document 51 Filed 09/09/14 Page 1 of 6 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

2016 FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version)

California Bar Examination

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

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

Case 1:11-cv WJM-CBS Document 127 Filed 12/16/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Before the CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

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

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

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

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

Evidence Presented by: Ervin Gonzalez, Esq.

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

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

RULES OF EVIDENCE Pennsylvania Mock Trial Version 2003

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

Case 3:14-cv KRG Document Filed 10/26/17 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Litigation Unveiled Click to edit Master title style

New Hampshire Supreme Court October 13, 2016 Oral Argument Case Summary

Follow this and additional works at:

California Bar Examination

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

Case 1:10-cr RDB Document 85 Filed 03/18/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND NORTHERN DIVISION

New Hampshire Supreme Court October 13, 2016 Oral Argument Case Summary

Non-Scientific Expert Testimony in Child Abuse Trials

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

Demonstrative Evidence

California Bar Examination

2011 RULES OF EVIDENCE

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

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

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

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

Criminal Evidence 6th Edition

FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Copr. West 1999 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. Southwestern University Law Review 1993

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

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

Adding a Little Bit of Hollywood to Your Trial

EVIDENCE INTRODUCTION TO EVIDENCE LAW I.

DELAWARE HIGH SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL RULES OF EVIDENCE

Case: 1:14-cr Document #: 67 Filed: 10/19/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1049

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

9i;RK, U.S~CE'F,T COURT

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

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

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

COURSE OUTLINE AND ASSIGNMENTS

Thinking Evidentially

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

KXL: Surprise! Economists Do Not Agree

STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF BARRY PLAINTIFF S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE

MEMORANDUM OPINION. No CR. Jason David YEPEZ, Appellant. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

Case 1:14-cv PAB-NYW Document 163 Filed 01/12/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

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

Case 2:03-cv JPM-tmp Document Filed 02/01/2006 Page 1 of 10

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

GEORGE MASON AMERICAN INN OF COURT ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN THE COURTROOM. March 7, 2017

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF OHIO JAMES WARD

Video Course Evaluation Form. Atty ID number for Pennsylvania: Name of Course You Just Watched

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

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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Follow this and additional works at:

Follow this and additional works at:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES GENERAL

Essentials of Demonstrative Evidence

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

SOME KEY CONCEPTS IN FOR CIVIL PRACTIONERS

Transcription:

J. Max Wawrik Nancy Rosado Colon Law 16 Spring 2017

Law of Evidence KEY TERMS Adversary System (U.S.) A system of justice where the parties work in opposition to each other, and each party tries to win a favorable result for itself. The Court is primarily an impartial referee. As Opposed to Inquisitorial System (France, South America, Africa & More) An inquisitorial system is a legal system where the court or a part of the court is actively involved in investigating the facts of the case. Direct Evidence Evidence that stands on its own to prove an alleged fact, such as testimony of a witness. Circumstantial Evidence Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact.

Law of Evidence KEY TERMS Proponent The party who proffers (offers/presents) the evidence. Premise Any assumption or information which forms the basis of a conclusion. Assumption A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof. Inference A conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning. Materiality Fact you are trying to show matters to the outcome

Law of Evidence KEY TERMS Chain of Reasoning How does A help show that B exists. Probative Assisting in the exploration for truth; informative (Probativeness - It has a tendency to show a material fact) Probative Value Measurable indicator of whether your fact is admissible Tendered Fact Whatever Fact/Evidence you want to admit into evidence. Inferred Fact Whatever Fact you are trying to prove.

Relevance

Relevance Relevance Has Two Components: 1. Tendency to prove or diminish the probability of a fact. 2. Materiality (the issue must matter in dispute between parties.) Probative Value can vary by two factors: How important is material fact it proves How strongly does it make the case Admissibility versus Weight: Admissibility: Law of Evidence is really concerned with admissibility Admissibility is a question for the judge Weight Weight is for the trier of-fact Irrelevant Irrelevant evidence is that evidence that is deemed immaterial or not relating to the matter at issue.

Chain of Reasoning A B Tendered Fact Inferred Fact Whatever Fact/Evidence You want to Admit Whatever Fact/Evidence You Are Trying to Proved

(a) (b) Law of Evidence Federal Rules of Evidence Article IV. Relevance and Its Limits 401. Test for Relevant Evidence Evidence is relevant if: it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and the fact is of consequence in determining the action

Law of Evidence Federal Rules of Evidence Article IV. Relevance and Its Limits Admissibility of Relevant Evidence Rule 402. General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence Relevant evidence is admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise: the United States Constitution; a federal statute; these rules; or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.

Law of Evidence Federal Rules of Evidence Article IV. Relevance and Its Limits Discretionary Provision Rule 403. Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons 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.

Allowable Evidentiary Objections Link to Full Objections http://missionparalegal.pbworks.com/f/rulesofevidence.html 1. Facts in the Record 2. Relevance 3. Laying a Proper Foundation 4. Personal Knowledge 5. Character Evidence 6. Opinion/Speculation 7. Hearsay 8. Leading Questions 9. Argumentative Questions 10. Asked and Answered Questions 11. Compound Questions 12. Narrative 13. Non-Responsive Witness 14. Outside the Scope of Cross-Examination

J. Max Wawrik Nancy Rosado Colon Law 16 Spring 2017