Avoid These Eleven Common Evidentiary Mistakes

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Avoid These Eleven Common Evidentiary Mistakes UIdaho Law Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law Articles Faculty Works 10-2017 Avoid These leveE n Common Evidentiary Mistakes John E. Rumel University of Idaho College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Evidence Commons Recommended Citation 60(10) Advocate 37 (2017) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Works at Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Avoid These Eleven Common Evidentiary Mistakes John Rumel Tim Gresback he law provides attorneys with numerous tools not only that the to prove a case, but to prevent "[O]ne of the most overworked formulas is an objection the other side from submit- evidence is'incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial:Its rhythm and ting improper evidence. Un- alliteration seduce some lawyers to employ it as a routine ritual."I fortunately, all too often, lawyers make misplaced objections or fail - Professor Charles McCormick to make appropriate objections at trial-because they both misunder- stand the rules governing the admis- sibility of evidence and also have not fully evaluated the objection's strate- gic consequences. Mastering the fun- damentals of effective evidentiary Professor Charles McCormick, an McCormick explains, "A brick is not 1 objections opens the door to a more early national authority on the Law a wall." That is, a single item of evi- sophisticated and effective litigation of Evidence, decried attorneys' use of dence need not prove every element strategy. Here are some of the most the general objection, stating in his of a cause of action. Some evidence common misguided evidentiary ob- hornbook that "[o]ne of the most is more compelling than other evi- jections. overworked formulas is an objection dence. A relevance objection is an that the evidence is 'incompetent, ir- improper mechanism to inform a relevant and immaterial: Its rhythm court that a lawyer does not find the Objections relating to and alliteration seduce some lawyers opponent's proof convincing. substantive admissibility to employ it as a routine ritual", Take away: Many relevance objec- The General Objection: Irrelevant, Similarly, more recent commenta- tions are misplaced because the ad- immaterial and incompetent: In the tors have referred to the general ob- missibility threshold is easily met." early years of Idaho trial practice, jection as a "hackneyed alliterative Repetitive and reflexive relevance 7 objecting to evidence as irrelevant, phrase? objections bog trials down and un- immaterial and incompetent was a Take away: The alliteration is out- dermine a lawyer's credibility. Rele- dated and should be avoided. vance objections are best made spar- common and successful practice.1 Objection: Relevance: Relevance ingly. Indeed, as of 1930 and as late as objections are often lodged without Objection: Highly Prejudicial 1965, objections on these grounds an understanding that relevance is Sometimes evidence drives a nail were sustained by Idaho judges very easy to establish. Under I.R.E. through the heart of a claim or de- and affirmed by the Idaho Supreme is devastating. 2 401, relevant evidence need only fense; its admission Court. However, by the mid-1930s, have "any tendency to make the ex- Our rules do not reject devastating the Idaho Supreme Court began to istence of any fact that is of conse- evidence-they invite it. In a des- question the sufficiency of a general quence to the determination of the perate attempt to keep the hammer 3 objection. Likewise, an increasing action more probable or less prob- from the nail, many lawyers conflate number of treatises viewed an ob- able than it would be without the the purpose of the IRE 403 balanc- jection that evidence was irrelevant, evidence.' ing test and wrongly think that high- immaterial and incompetent as an Professor McCormick uses a ly prejudicial evidence is somehow impermissible general objection, brick wall metaphor to illustrate objectionable. only to be sustained if the evidence how almost all evidence is relevant.9 Under Rule 403, the first inquiry was not admissible on any grounds.4 A party has broad discretion on is whether the proffered evidence is Thus, by the early 1970s, the Idaho how to build its wall of truth, even relevant. As already explained, the high court held that the mantra was if the other side hotly disputes the vast majority of evidence is relevant. improper when a more specific ob- existence of every, some, or a single Once this easy threshold is crossed, jection might have been made.s evidentiary brick offered at trial. As the court then weighs whether the The Advocate -October 2017 37 probative value of the evidence will Objection: Lack of Foundation: Objection: [Blab Blab Blab] - The be "substantially outweighed" by Admissible evidence cannot arise Speaking Objection Jurors are not the danger of "unfair prejudice" from a factual vacuum. For example, supposed to hear lawyers argue legal Close calls favor admissibility: evi- before a party can testify in an auto issues meant for the court. Unfortu- dence is excluded only if the "unfair collision case that the traffic light nately, many lawyers ignore the con- prejudice" "substantially" outweighs was green at the time of a crash, striction and use an objection as a the probative value. The Rule 403 numerous predicate foundational showboating opportunity in front of balancing test, like our rule on rel- facts should be established-includ- the jury. Although a few judges may evance, favors admissibility. An un- ing that the witness remembers the tolerate such a technique, most will biased eyewitness who clearly sees a crash, was at the scene, and saw the rebuke it. Objections, when lodged, stabbing provides extremely prejudi- traffic light before impact. On direct must be succinctly stated without a cial testimony. Although highly prej- exam, foundational facts are usually commentary.14 elicited through non-leading jour- udicial, nothing whatsoever about Take away: Legal objections to ev- nalist questions that start with who, the evidence is unfair. idence neither present an opportu- what, where, when, or how. By contrast, evidence that the de- nity to charm jurors nor help a law- fendant previously stabbed someone yer establish credibility. Bombarded else on a prior occasion requires a with speaking objections-particu- more nuanced analysis. As already larly those that are overruled, a jury mentioned, the threshold inquiry may begin to tire and wonder why does not set a high bar. Certainly, the Our experience is that the wordy objector is slowing down fact that a person acted in a certain foundation objections, like the process. Even worse, the jury may consider the source rather than way yesterday does not conclusively relevance objections, are lodged prove the content of the objection and not how the person acted today. too frequently-and they The "any tendency" standard, how- take legitimate objections seriously. ever, does not require anything close usually backfire. to conclusive proof. As such, yester- Objections regarding the form of the day's conduct is indeed relevant in question or substance of the answer evaluating today's. Objection: Leading Question (on For Rule 403 balancing of a prior Re-direct Examination) Under the incident, it may help not to consider Idaho Rules of Evidence, the law whether the prior incident is irrele- concerning use of leading questions vant, but whether it is "too" relevant. on direct and cross-examination is In other words, jurors may reason Our experience is that founda- well established and well under- that because the defendant stabbed stood: "[hleading questions should tion objections, like relevance ob- before, the defendant is a bad per- not be used on the direct examina- jections, are lodged too frequent- son and should be convicted even if tion of a witness except as may be ly-and they usually backfire. The the proof of the charged incident is necessary to develop the testimony 12 overuse of foundation objections underwhelming. Now, the danger of the witness" including examining occurs mostly in criminal cases. De- of unfair prejudice is high, and the "a hostile witness, an adverse party, need for 403 balancing is more com- fenders time and again help prosecu- or a witness identified with an ad- tors prove guilt by demanding more pelling. verse party ... "1 In contrast,"[o]rdi- Take away: The goal in using the foundation. Prosecutors then shore narily leading questions should be Rule 403 balancing test is not to up their case and add the missing permitted on cross-examination"' convince the court that the evidence facts. Veteran defenders, by contrast, But what about on re-direct exami- devastatingly prejudices your case. wait for closing argument to explain nation? Its admission must unfairly preju- the absence of details. Although undecided in Idaho, dice your client for a compelling Take away: Like relevance objec- courts in other jurisdictions have policy reason that substantially out- tions, just because a foundation ob- held and commentators have made weighs its probative value. The preju- jection can be made does not mean clear that leading questions are dice must be unfair, and imbalance that it should be made. Avoid the generally inappropriate on redirect must be substantial.13 premature pounce. examination and are, therefore, ob- 38 The Advocate *October 2017 jectionable.17 Indeed, one court held that the failure to object to leading questions on re-direct examina- tion in a criminal case amounted to "unprofessional errors" constitut- ing ineffective assistance of coun- In an almost Pavlovian response, lawyers hear the words"she said"or sel, although the court ultimately "he said"and quickly blurt out a hearsay objection.
Recommended publications
  • Michigan Rules of Evidence Table of Contents
    Michigan Rules of Evidence Table of Contents RULES 101–106 .......................................................................................................... 4 Rule 101. Scope. ....................................................................................................... 4 Rule 102. Purpose. ................................................................................................... 4 Rule 103. Rulings on Evidence. ............................................................................... 4 Rule 104. Preliminary Questions. ........................................................................... 5 Rule 105. Limited Admissibility. ............................................................................. 5 Rule 106. Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded Statements. ................. 5 RULES 201–202 .......................................................................................................... 5 Rule 201. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts. .................................................... 5 Rule 202. Judicial Notice of Law. ............................................................................ 6 RULES 301–302 .......................................................................................................... 6 Rule 301. Presumptions in Civil Actions and Proceedings. ................................... 6 Rule 302. Presumptions in Criminal Cases. ........................................................... 6 RULES 401–411 .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 4.08 “Open Door” Evidence (1) a Party
    4.08 “Open Door” Evidence (1) A party may “open the door” to the introduction by an opposing party of evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible when in the presentation of argument, cross-examination of a witness, or other presentation of evidence the party has given an incomplete and misleading impression on an issue. (2) A trial court must exercise its discretion to decide whether a party has “opened the door” to otherwise inadmissible evidence. In so doing, the trial court should consider whether, and to what extent, the evidence or argument claimed to “open the door” is incomplete and misleading and what, if any, otherwise inadmissible evidence is reasonably necessary to explain, clarify, or otherwise correct an incomplete and misleading impression. (3) To assure the proper exercise of the court’s discretion and avoid the introduction of otherwise inadmissible evidence, the recommended practice is for a party to apply to the trial court for a ruling on whether the door has been opened before proceeding forward, and the court should so advise the parties before taking evidence. Note Subdivisions (1) and (2) recite the long-settled “open door” principle in New York, as primarily explained in People v Melendez (55 NY2d 445 [1982]); People v Rojas (97 NY2d 32, 34 [2001]); People v Massie (2 NY3d 179 [2004]); and People v Reid (19 NY3d 382 [2012]). Melendez dealt with the issue of whether the defense had opened the door to permit the prosecutor to explore an aspect of the investigation that would not otherwise have been admissible. The Court began by noting that, when an “opposing party ‘opens the door’ on cross-examination to matters not touched upon during the direct examination, a party has the right on redirect to explain, clarify and fully elicit [the] question only partially examined on cross-examination.” (Melendez at 451 1 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted].) Argument to the jury or other presentation of evidence also may open the door to the admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Testimony
    CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY H.R. 51, "Washington, D.C. Admission Act" Testimony before the Committee on Oversight and Reform United States House of Representatives March 22, 2021 Zack Smith Legal Fellow Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies The Heritage Foundation Table of Contents I. The District of Columbia cannot be converted into our nation's 51st state without a constitutional amendment 3 II. Former Washington, DC Mayor Walter E. Washington raised practical concerns about making the District a state, and former Delegate Walter Fauntroy raised constitutional concerns 4 III. The historical reasons for securing full federal control over the seat of government, for preventing one state from having outsized influence on the federal government, and for the important symbolic value of having a national capital free from a single state's influence remain true today 6 IV. Both Democratic and Republican Justice Departments have reached the same conclusion that DC statehood requires a constitutional amendment 8 A. The fact that Congress has used its authority under Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution to admit 37 other states is constitutionally irrelevant. The District owes its existence to the fact that Congress exercised its CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY authority under Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution to create it. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 9 l. The prior retrocession of part of the District to Virginia should not be used as precedent 1O 2. Maryland's consent is needed before a new state can be created from the land it donated to create the federal seat of government 10 B. The Twenty-Third Amendment provides the most serious constitutional obstacle to the District's becoming a state via simple legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • Waiver of the Attorney-Client Privilege: a Balanced Approach
    339780COV_P1 6/5/06 11:40 AM Page 1 WAIVER OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE: A BALANCED APPROACH by The Honorable Dick Thornburgh Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP Foreword by The Honorable John Engler President and CEO, National Association of Manufacturers Introduction by Laura Stein Senior Vice President - General Counsel and Corporate Secretary The Clorox Company ® WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION Washington, D.C. 339780COV_P2 6/5/06 11:41 AM Page 2 WLF’S LEGAL STUDIES DIVISION This Monograph is one of a series of original papers published by the Legal Studies Division of the Washington Legal Foundation. Through this The Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) established its Legal Studies Division to and other publications, WLF seeks to provide the national legal community address cutting-edge legal issues by publishing substantive, credible publications targeted at with legal studies on a variety of timely public policy issues. Additional educating policy makers, the media, and other key legal policy outlets. copies of this Monograph may be obtained by writing to the Publications WLF’s Legal Studies Division has deliberately adopted a unique approach that sets it Department, Washington Legal Foundation, 2009 Massachusetts Avenue, apart from other policy centers. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. First, the Division deals almost exclusively with legal policy questions as they relate to the principles of free enterprise, legal and judicial restraint, and America’s economic and Other recent studies in the WLF Monograph series include: national security. Exporting Precaution: How Europe’s Risk-Free Regulatory Agenda Second, its publications focus on a highly select legal policy-making audience.
    [Show full text]
  • The Australian Priest-Penitent Privilege: Are They Protected?
    Journal of Politics and Law; Vol. 6, No. 4; 2013 ISSN 1913-9047 E-ISSN 1913-9055 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education The Australian Priest-Penitent Privilege: Are They Protected? Patrick van Esch1 & Linda Jean van Esch2 1 School of Law, Charles Darwin University, Northern Territory, Australia 2 Western Australian School of Mines, Faculty of Science & Engineering, Curtin University, Perth, Australia Correspondence: Patrick van Esch, School of Law, Charles Darwin University, Ellengowan Drive, Casuarina, NT 0810, Australia. Tel: 61-8-8946-6666. E-mail: [email protected] Received: August 5, 2013 Accepted: August 23, 2013 Online Published: November 29, 2013 doi:10.5539/jpl.v6n4p90 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v6n4p90 Abstract In Australia, the extent of the priest-penitent privilege has received much attention recently due to the appointment of a Royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse in 2012. At present, only five (5) Australian jurisdictions provide statutes for some form of privilege to protect certain types of communications between clerics and individuals. The other jurisdictions rely on case law where it is deemed that the priest-penitent privilege does not apply, but this belief is yet to be tested. In an attempt to abide by their religious laws, and depending on the their particular denomination, clerics may be entitled, not obliged to refuse divulging subject matter from religious confessions, even if a confession was made or not. Keywords: priest-penitent privilege, the evidence acts, religious law, professional communications privilege, case law, state law, cleric 1. Introduction With the sanctity of the confessional being challenged in an increasingly secular world, it is becoming more likely that a religious cleric may be called to give evidence in a court of law; irrespective of any understanding towards the cleric’s ethical and religious obligations.
    [Show full text]
  • Probate and Property (35:01)
    THE COVID-19 ISSUE EFFECT OF THE COVID-19 REMOTE INK NOTARIZATION EVICTIONS AND THE VOL 35, NO 1 VIRUS ON COMMERCIAL LEASE AND REMOTE WITNESSING COVID-19 PANDEMIC JAN/FEB 2021 TRANSACTIONS DURING THE PANDEMIC A PUBLICATION OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION | REAL PROPERTY, TRUST AND ESTATE LAW SECTION SO MANY HAVE DIED COVID-19 in America’s Nursing Homes The Section is excited to announce the RPTE Book Club. The RPTE Book Club is a lecture and Q&A Series with the authors. Each series will be a different book title within the legal field. THE COLOR OF LAW A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America Join RPTE along with author Richard Rothstein as he discusses how segregation in America is the byproduct of explicit government policies at the local, state, and federal levels along with a Q&A session. Wednesday, February 24, 2021 12-1 PM CT The first 100 registrants will receive a copy of the book with their registration fee. Register at ambar.org/rptebookclub PROFESSORS’ CORNER PROFESSORS’ CORNER A monthly webinar featuring a panel of professors addressing recent cases or issues of relevance to A monthlypractitioners webinar and featuring scholars ofa panel real estate of professors or trusts addressing and estates. recent FREE cases for RPTE or issues Section of relevance members to! practitioners and scholars of real estate or trusts and estates. FREE for RPTE Section members! Register for each webinar at http://ambar.org/ProfessorsCornerRegister for each webinar at http://ambar.org/ProfessorsCorner WILLS IN THE 21ST CENTURY: TOWARDS THE SECURE ACT: RETIREMENT PLANNING SENSIBLE APPLICATION OF FORMALITIES AND MONETARY EXPECTATIONS THE LEGACIES OF RACIAL RESTRICTIVE MOORE ON POWELL AND I.R.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Leading Questions During Direct Examination
    Florida State University Law Review Volume 23 Issue 2 Article 4 Fall 1995 Using Leading Questions During Direct Examination Charles W. Ehrhardt Florida State University College of Law Stephanie J. Young Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Evidence Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Charles W. Ehrhardt & Stephanie J. Young, Using Leading Questions During Direct Examination, 23 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 401 (1995) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol23/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. USING LEADING QUESTIONS DURING DIRECT EXAMINATION CHARLES W. EHRHARDT* AND STEPHANIE J. YOUNG"* I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 401 II. BEFORE ADOPTION OF FLORIDA'S EVIDENCE CODE ......... 402 A. An Exception for Leading Questions on Direct Examination ................................................ 402 B. Voucher Rule Barred Impeaching a Party'sOwn Witness ....................................................... 404 III. ADOPTION OF FLORIDA'S EVIDENCE CODE ................... 405 A. Section 90.608: Impeaching an Adverse Witness... 405 B. Section 90.612(3): Use of Leading Questions ....... 406 C. 1990 Amendment to Section 90.608 ................... 408 D. Evidence Code Amendments Make Rule Unnecessary................................................
    [Show full text]
  • New York Evidentiary Foundations Randolph N
    digitalcommons.nyls.edu Faculty Scholarship Books 1993 New York Evidentiary Foundations Randolph N. Jonakait H. Baer E. S. Jones E. Imwinkelried Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_books Part of the Evidence Commons Recommended Citation Jonakait, Randolph N.; Baer, H.; Jones, E. S.; and Imwinkelried, E., "New York Evidentiary Foundations" (1993). Books. Book 4. http://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_books/4 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Books by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@NYLS. New York .Evidentiary Foundations RANDOLPH N. JONAKAIT HAROLD BAER, JR. E. STEWART JONES, JR. EDWARD J. IMWINKELRIED THE MICHIE COMPANY Law Publishers CHARLOTIESVILLE, Vlli:GINIA CoPYRIGHT ~ 1H93 BY THE MICHIE COMI'ANY Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 93-77731 ISBN: 1-55834-058-0 All rights reserved. lllllllllllllllllllllllllm IIIII SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Contents . v Chapter 1. Introduction . 1 Chapter 2. Related Procedures .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ..... 11 Chapter 3. The Competency ofWitnesses .......................... 25 Chapter 4. Authentication . 45 Chapter 5. Limitations on Credibility Evidence . 99 Chapter 6. Limitations on Evidence That Is Relevant to the Merits of the Case . 129 Chapter 7. Privileges and Similar Doctrines . 155 Chapter 8. The Best Evidence Rule . 199 Chapter 9. Opinion Evidence ......................................... 225 Chapter 10. The Hearsay Rule, Its Exemptions, and Its Excep- tions ......................................................... 241 Chapter 11. Substitutes for Evidence . .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. ..... ... .. 315 Index ......................................................................... 329 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Summary Table of Contents 111 Chapter 1. Introduction .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 · A. Introduction . 1 B. Laying a Foundation - In General . 2 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Trial Witnesses, Un-Lead the Questions
    Trial Witnesses, Un-Lead the Questions Prepared by: Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm Persuasion Strategies - a service of Holland & Hart LLP Published on www.lorman.com - May 2019 Trial Witnesses - Un-Lead the Questions, ©2019 Lorman Education Services. All Rights Reserved. Trial Witnesses, Un-Lead the Questions Written by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm When testifying, there are some situations where a “less is more” rule applies. In a deposition, for example, you don’t want to aid the other side, and will often prefer conciseness. However, when undergoing cross-examination before a jury in trial, less isn’t more…it is less. That is, if you limit yourself to simple “yes” answers, then you have less control (with your adversary choosing all the words) less power (since you’re just confirming the facts that opposing counsel has selected), and less overall usefulness to the jury (since you aren’t saying much). In a courtroom cross-examination, there is a need to find ways to talk more so that you appear to be credible and, in some ways at least, so you function as a teacher for your jury. So, how do you do that if all opposing counsel is doing is giving you statements that are turned into questions by adding, “Wouldn’t you agree…” at the start, or, “Right?” at the end? What you need to do is mentally convert the language of those questions so they’re no longer leading questions. They may be asking you, “You never tested the product with actual consumers, did you?” but the question you want to answer is more like, “What did you do to test the product?” The broader version is better for ensuring that you aren’t just a rubber-stamp for your adversary’s selective claims, but instead get to share your side of the story.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Marital Privileges in a Criminal Context: the Eedn for Further Modification Since Trammel The
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 43 | Issue 1 Article 10 Winter 1-1-1986 Federal Marital Privileges In A Criminal Context: The eedN For Further Modification Since Trammel The Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Civil Procedure Commons, and the Evidence Commons Recommended Citation Federal Marital Privileges In A Criminal Context: The Need For Further Modification Since Trammel The, 43 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 197 (1986), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol43/iss1/10 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FEDERAL MARITAL PRIVILEGES IN A CRIMINAL CONTEXT: THE NEED FOR FURTHER MODIFICATION SINCE TRAMMEL The defendant's privilege to prevent admission of his or her spouse's testimony at trial has existed in one form or another for roughly 400 years.' Not until the twentieth century, however, have the marital privileges under- gone major modifications and faced the possibility of abolition. 2 The adverse spousal testimony privilege and the confidential communications privilege constitute the marital privileges. The adverse spousal testimony privilege prevents the admission into evidence of a spouse's testimony that tends to incriminate a defendant spouse.' The confidential communications privilege 4 excludes from evidence private marital communications between spouses. Exceptions to the privileges have developed begrudgingly and reluctantly.5 1.Trammel v.
    [Show full text]
  • Foundation Evidence, Questions and Courtroom Protocols Fifth Edition
    Foundation Evidence, Questions and Courtroom Protocols Fifth Edition Hon. Edward M. Davidowitz Robert L. Dreher, Esq. New York State Bar Association Continuing Legal Education publications are intended to provide current and accurate information to help attorneys maintain their professional competence. Publications are distributed with the understanding that NYSBA does not render any legal, accounting or other professional service. Attorneys using publications or orally conveyed information in dealing with a specific client’s or their own legal matters should also research original sources of authority. We consider the publication of any NYSBA practice book as the begin- ning of a dialogue with our readers. Periodic updates to this book will give us the opportunity to incorporate your suggestions regarding additions or corrections. Please send your comments to: CLE Publications Director, New York State Bar Association, One Elk Street, Albany, NY 12207. Copyright: 2014 by New York State Bar Association All rights reserved ISBN: 1-57969-412-8 Product Number: 41074 This book is dedicated to the memory of Judge Edward M. Davidowitz. iii CONTENTS Chapter One The Courtroom and the Court................... 1 Chapter Two Trial and Courtroom Protocols ................. 9 Chapter Three Courtroom Closure.................................... 17 Chapter Four Examination of Defendants Who Want to Proceed to Trial Pro Se ......................... 25 Chapter Five Pretrial and Suppression Hearings............ 31 Chapter Six Alternative Procedures for Admission and Preclusion of Evidence....................... 43 Chapter Seven Physical and Demonstrative Evidence...... 49 Chapter Eight Lay Witness Testimony ............................ 93 Chapter Nine Documentary Evidence............................. 131 Chapter Ten Expert Witness Testimony........................ 153 Chapter Eleven Examination of Witnesses: Direct and Re-direct.................................. 195 Chapter Twelve Cross-Examination...................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio Rules of Evidence
    OHIO RULES OF EVIDENCE Article I GENERAL PROVISIONS Rule 101 Scope of rules: applicability; privileges; exceptions 102 Purpose and construction; supplementary principles 103 Rulings on evidence 104 Preliminary questions 105 Limited admissibility 106 Remainder of or related writings or recorded statements Article II JUDICIAL NOTICE 201 Judicial notice of adjudicative facts Article III PRESUMPTIONS 301 Presumptions in general in civil actions and proceedings 302 [Reserved] Article IV RELEVANCY AND ITS LIMITS 401 Definition of “relevant evidence” 402 Relevant evidence generally admissible; irrelevant evidence inadmissible 403 Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or undue delay 404 Character evidence not admissible to prove conduct; exceptions; other crimes 405 Methods of proving character 406 Habit; routine practice 407 Subsequent remedial measures 408 Compromise and offers to compromise 409 Payment of medical and similar expenses 410 Inadmissibility of pleas, offers of pleas, and related statements 411 Liability insurance Article V PRIVILEGES 501 General rule Article VI WITNESS 601 General rule of competency 602 Lack of personal knowledge 603 Oath or affirmation Rule 604 Interpreters 605 Competency of judge as witness 606 Competency of juror as witness 607 Impeachment 608 Evidence of character and conduct of witness 609 Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime 610 Religious beliefs or opinions 611 Mode and order of interrogation and presentation 612 Writing used to refresh memory 613 Impeachment by self-contradiction
    [Show full text]