DOCSLIB.ORG

Evidence in Family Law 1 I

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evidence in Family Law 1 I EVIDENCE IN FAMILY LAW 1 I. RULES OF EVIDENCE Chapter 1. General Provisions Art. 101. Scope. Art. 102. Purpose and Construction These articles shall be construed to secure fairness and efficiency in administration of the law of evidence to the end that the truth may be ascertained and proceedings justly determined. Art. 103. Rulings on Evidence The contemporaneous objection requirement (specific ground of the objection) arises when a ruling admits evidence; however, when a ruling excludes evidence, the substance of the evidence must be made known. It is incumbent upon the party who contends his evidence was improperly excluded to make an offer of proof. La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1636. Art. 104. Preliminary Questions Preliminary questions concerning (1) the competency or qualification of a person to be a witness, (2) the existence of a privilege, or (3) the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court. Compare with La. C.E. art. 1008. In making its determination, the court is not bound by the rules of evidence except those with respect to privileges. Art. 105. Limited Admissibility – e.g., suit record admitted in evidence for divorce hearing only. Chapter 2. Judicial Notice Art. 201. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts A party is not required to prove facts which may be judicially noticed. Adjudicative facts are those that normally must be proved in the lawsuit. A judge may only notice facts which are not subject to reasonable dispute, either because they are (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court, or (2) are readily determined from accurate sources. The court may take notice, requested or not; the court must take notice if requested and given proper information. The parties are entitled to an opportunity to contest the taking of judicial notice. Examples: judicial notice of distance between two geographical points (relocations, determination if deponent lives more than 100 miles from courthouse, etc.); passage of time (age of children for termination of child support, etc.). Art. 202. Judicial Notice of Legal Matters Trial court may take judicial notice of its own proceedings; it cannot take notice of other court proceedings — thus, documentation of such proceedings must be offered into evidence in the ususal manner. Examples: judicial notice of entire record; judicial notice of previous judgments, orders, and injunctions. Chapter 3. Presumptions and Prima Facie Evidence Art. 302. Definitions 1. “Burden of persuasion” is the burden to establish requisite degree of belief in mind of trier of fact.2 In Talbot v. Talbot, 864 So. 2d 590 (La. 2003), the Supreme Court explained: In civil cases, a party [Plaintiff or Defendant] who has the burden of proof must prove the fact in issue by a preponderance of the evidence [more probable than not], and not by some artificially created greater standard. Lasha v. Olin Corp., 625 So.2d 1002, 1005 (La. 1993); Jordan v. Travelers Ins. Co., 245 So.2d 151, 1155 (1971). Only in exceptional controversies is the clear and convincing standard applied in civil cases ‘where there is thought to be special danger of deception, or where the court considers that the particular type of claim should be disfavored on policy.' Succession of Lyons, 452 So.2d 1165. The clear and convincing standard requires a party to prove the existence of a contested fact is highly probable, or much more probable than its non-existence. Succession of Lyons, 452 So.2d at 1165. 3. “Presumption” is an ‘inference’ (conclusion that an evidentiary fact exists) created by legislation that trier must draw if finds existence of ‘predicate fact.’ Art. 304. Rebuttable Presumptions The presumptions herein are rebuttable presumptions which shift the burden of persuasion to the opponent. Rebuttable presumptions may be controverted or overcome by appropriate evidence, unlike conclusive presumptions which are rules of substantive law not regulated by this Chapter. Art. 308. “Prima Facie Evidence of a Fact” is evidence sufficient to establish the existence of that fact; similarly, a “Prima Facie Case” is one which meets the plaintiff's burden of producing evidence, i.e., evidence from which the trier of fact may conclude the existence of every fact essential to plaintiff's recovery. 1 There are two major areas of evidence law: Relevancy and Competency. 2 The burden of proof actually involves two separate burdens. The test for meeting the burden of persuasion is applied at the end of trial. The burden of production, on the other hand, arises when the party (plaintiff or defendant) presents his case-in-chief. Page 1 of 24 Chapter 4. Relevancy and Its Limits (General Rules (401-403) • Character (404-405) • Habit/Routine (406)) Art. 401. “Relevant evidence” is evidence that has any tendency to make the existence (or nonexistence) of a fact of consequence more or less probable. Evidence is relevant only if it has a tendency to prove or disprove a fact in issue.3 • A distinction should be made between evidence that may be used to prove or disprove a fact in issue (substantive evidence) and evidence which is relevant only to assess whether a witness should be believed (impeachment evidence; credibility evidence). Art. 402. Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; irrelevant evidence inadmissible Art. 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or waste of time. h Article 401/403 Balancing Test. Probative worth balanced against fairness & judicial efficiency.4 Art. 404. Character Evidence Generally Not Admissible to Prove Conduct; Exceptions The general rule in civil cases is that evidence of a person's character or a trait of his character, such as a moral quality, is not admissible to show that the person acted in conformity with his character on a particular occasion. La. C.E. art. 404(A). This rule requires exclusion of specific instances of conduct only when offered to prove that a person acted in a particular manner on a particular occasion, that is, the person acted in conformity with his character. It does not require the exclusion of character evidence when the character of a person is an essential element in the case. See La. C.E. art. 405(B). Art. 405. Methods of Proving Character5 On direct, where character evidence is admissible, proof may be by general reputation only; the foundation that the witness is familiar with that reputation is required. On cross, inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct. Remember, too, in cases in which character is an essential element of a claim or defense (e.g., custody, fault, etc.) proof may also be made of specific instances of conduct. La. C.E. art. 405(B). • La. C.E. art. 405(B) states: “In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a claim or defense proof may . be made of specific instances of his conduct.” Art. 406. Habit; Routine Practice; Methods of Proof Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice. The evidence may consist of testimony in the form of an opinion or evidence of specific instances of conduct sufficient in number to warrant a finding that the habit existed or that the practice was routine. • The first sentence of this Article is included to distinguish its treatment of habit-and-routine-practice evidence from that of other character evidence, which is generally inadmissible when offered circumstantially. See La. C.E. arts. 404-405. Art. 407. Subsequent Remedial Measures Art. 408. Compromise and Offers to Compromise Article 408 does not require the exclusion of evidence otherwise admissible merely because it is presented in the course of compromise negotiations, but you have to show that you obtained it some other way. Similarly, the article does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose, such as proving the bias or prejudice of a witness, or rebutting a claim of undue delay. 3 E.g., Evidence of the character of a person who would have custody of a child is always relevant and admissible — La. Civ. Code art 134(6), moral fitness — even though the facts of the character evidence occurred prior to a previous judgment on the matter. See, e.g., Crowson v. Crowson, 742 So. 2d 107 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1999), wherein the appellate court distinguished between the use of evidence to show a material change in circumstances and to show the best interest of the child. 4 E.g., Briscoe v. Briscoe, 641 So. 2d 999 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1994) (in divorce action, fact that husband punched wife eight years earlier too remote). 5 Character evidence may be divided into four subcategories: a person's (1) general character, (2) specific character trait, (3) specific acts, or (4) habit. Any one of these may be direct evidence depending upon the nature of the claim or defense. Thus, general character or a character trait may be direct evidence in a child custody case. In such case, any prejudicial effect is clearly outweighed by the probative value of the character evidence. The Code of Evidence recognizes this in Article 405(B). The problem arises when character is not an "essential element of a . claim or defense" but is offered to prove a person's conduct at a time and place in issue. In evaluating relevancy of circumstantial evidence of character, it is important to focus upon the exclusionary phrase "to prove he acted in conformity therewith." La.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chain of Custody
    BY KEITH G. CHVAL Chain of Custody Recent incidents have shown how important it is for colleges and universities to preserve evidence — including digital evidence — that may be required in a legal investigation. ey Jon, I need the “ chain of custody.” H “The what?” Your general counsel has just stopped by your office and dropped that bombshell on you as you were drinking your morning cup of coffee. “Remember all those e-mails and other electronic files you gave us in connection with that internal investigation of Smith last summer? Well, the case is going to trial, and we need the chain of custody to prove that Smith really wrote all those things. Without the chain of custody, the judge won’t admit any of that information, and we’ll get killed at trial.” While chain of custody is a legal is challenging the authenticity of If “chain of custody” is a new or term of art — meaning it has a evidence — particularly where digital vague concept to you, you’re not alone. specific meaning in the law and can evidence is involved — I’ve found that AEL HENDERSON AEL In simplest terms, a proper chain have legal consequences — it has there are very few who adequately L of custody establishes the integrity significant practical implications for account for the chain of custody, let of a piece of evidence, showing that IT managers and other professionals. alone appreciate its importance,” it wasn’t tampered with or otherwise “Although it plays a critical function observes Scott Carlson, a partner in altered since it was first collected.
    [Show full text]
  • Conditional Relevance and the Admissibility of Party Admissions Gerald F
    Santa Clara Law Santa Clara Law Digital Commons Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 1-1-2007 Conditional Relevance and the Admissibility of Party Admissions Gerald F. Uelmen Santa Clara University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs Recommended Citation 36 Sw. U. L. Rev. 657 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONDITIONAL RELEVANCE AND THE ADMISSIBILITY OF PARTY ADMISSIONS Gerald F. Uelmen* I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 657 II. THE ALLOCATION OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR FINDING PRELIMINARY FACTS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE C O D E ....................................................................................... 6 5 8 III. THE ALLOCATION OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR FINDING PRELIMINARY FACTS IN FEDERAL COURTS PRIOR TO B O URJA ILY .............................................................................. 66 1 IV. THE BOURJAILY DECISION AND ITS AFTERMATH ................... 664 V. POST-BOURJAILY CONFUSION IN THE FEDERAL COURT ........ 669 VI. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? ................. .. .. .. .. 672 I. INTRODUCTION Among the most significant differences between the Federal Rules of Evidence and the California Evidence Code is the allocation between
    [Show full text]
  • 19-Cr-00008-NR Document 2581 Filed 12/21/20 Page 1 of 3
    Case 2:19-cr-00008-NR Document 2581 Filed 12/21/20 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) 2:19-cr-8-NR ) OMARI PATTON, ) ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM ORDER Omari Patton and 47 co-defendants are charged with engaging in a large-scale conspiracy to traffic a variety of Schedule I, II, and III controlled substances, including heroin, cocaine, fentanyl, and synthetic cannabinoids. Mr. Patton has requested leave to file a motion to suppress certain laboratory test results and other items that the Federal Bureau of Prisons seized, including card stock and other paper that was believed to have been soaked in controlled substances. ECF 1774; ECF 1810. After carefully considering the parties’ submissions, the Court will grant Mr. Patton leave to file his motion to suppress, but will deny the motion without prejudice to Mr. Patton reasserting his objections at or around the time of trial. Mr. Patton’s primary argument is that “the Government failed to properly preserve” the cards and paper seized and later lab tested because of “numerous and serious errors in the chain of custody.” ECF 1810, ¶¶ 4-6. Mr. Patton claims that “[p]hysical evidence must be authenticated before being admitted into evidence.” Id. at ¶ 7. He also claims that the substantial “break” in the chain of custody here makes this authentication impossible. Id. at ¶ 31. The government, however, correctly points out that “[a]uthentication objections, like other trial objections, are assessed according to the applicable Federal Rules of Evidence, including Rules 104(a) and 901(a),” and there is “no requirement that the proponent [of evidence] do so before the evidence is presented at trial[.]” ECF 1879, at ¶ 22.
    [Show full text]
  • Chain of Custody Specimen Collection Instructions
    DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY AND LABORATORY MEDICINE CHAIN OF CUSTODY SPECIMEN COLLECTION INSTRUCTIONS Chain of custody specimens can be used as evidence in court as the specimen is collected in the presence of a witness, sealed to prevent tampering and all handling/possession of specimen is recorded on the form from collection to testing. Testing Available Drugs of Abuse Microbiology Drugs of Abuse Screen 5, CoC, Meconium, LAB7379 Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhea PCR (CTNG PCR), Urine, LAB7166 Confirmed Drug Abuse Panel 9, CoC, Urine, LAB8020 Rapid Plasma Reagin w/ Reflex Titer (RPR), Blood, LAB7452 All Specimen Types 1. Place appropriate Chain of Custody test order in Epic 2. Microbiology samples can be ordered with or without Chain of Custody. Compete the following items in Epic when ordering testing for Chain of Custody: • Chain of Custody? Mark box “Yes” 3. Obtain Chain of Custody kit from the Laboratory: Anschutz Campus – 720-777-6711 North Campus – 720-478-5250 South Campus – 720-478-6711; 303-201-0155 (after-hours pager) Receive Chain of Custody Kit. Ensure all required items are included. Meconium Kit: Urine Kit: Blood Kit: • Chain of custody bag • Chain of custody bag • Chain of custody bag • Stool specimen container • Plastic cup • Red top vacutainer tube • Security label • 60-mL bottle • Security label • Chain of custody form • Security tape • Chain of custody form • Temperature slip • Chain of custody form 4. Complete Chain of Custody Form 5. Identify witness and obtain witness signature 6. Collect specimen: Meconium: Urine: Blood: • Place 1.0 to 5.0 • Collect specimen in provided cup or pediatric bag • Venipuncture or grams meconium in • Pour specimen into 60-mL transport bottle.
    [Show full text]
  • Case: 4:11-Cv-00454-DCN Doc #: 40 Filed: 03/28/14 1 of 46. Pageid
    Case: 4:11-cv-00454-DCN Doc #: 40 Filed: 03/28/14 1 of 46. PageID #: <pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JOHN E. WOLFF, JR., ) CASE NO. 4:11-cv-0454 ) Petitioner, ) JUDGE NUGENT ) v. ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE VECCHIARELLI ) TERRY TIBBALS, ) ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Respondent. ) This matter is before the magistrate judge pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). Before the court is the petition of John E. Wolff, Jr., (“Petitioner”) for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is in the custody of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction pursuant to journal entry of sentence in the case of State of Ohio vs. Wolff, Case No. 06-CR-978 (Mahoning County Aug. 29, 2007). (Doc. No. 23-10.) For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that the petition be dismissed with prejudice. I. Relevant Factual Background The state appellate court that reviewed Petitioner’s conviction and sentence recited the following facts: On September 14, 2006, Wolff was indicted on ten counts of rape, in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b)(B), special felony (Counts 1-10); three counts of rape, in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2)(B), 1st degree felony (Counts 11-13); five counts of gross sexual imposition, in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4)(B), 3rd degree felony (Counts 14-18); and two counts of gross sexual imposition, in violation of R.C. Case: 4:11-cv-00454-DCN Doc #: 40 Filed: 03/28/14 2 of 46.
    [Show full text]
  • EVIDENCE Introduction Definition – the Means, Sanctioned by These
    EVIDENCE Introduction Definition – the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding, the truth respecting a matter of fact. (Rule 128, Sec. 1.) Scope of applicability – rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these rules. (Rule 128, Sec 2.) Notes: The Rules on Evidence apply only when there is going to be a trial. Note that there can be a judgment on pleadings, by confession, consent and compromise etc. IN CIVIL CASES. Mere denial in the answer in a CIVIL CASE will not present a probandum hence no need for the court to try the case. Such general denial will be considered as an admission. In CRIMINAL CASES, We have to wait until the accused enters a plea. This time a general denial is allowed. If the accused enters a plea of guilty there is no probandum. However in CRIMINAL CASES, the court could still try the case if the case involves a heinous crime. The Rules on evidence are not self-executing. So the rule is any evidence submitted will be admitted so long as there is no objection. This principle is only for the purpose of admissibility. It does not mean that the court will take these irrelevant evidence in evaluating on the merits of the case. DIFFERENCE IN RULES ON EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES AND CIVIL CASES BASIS Criminal Case Civil Case Quantum of Proof Proof Beyond Reasonable Preponderance of Doubt evidence Denial General Denial Allowed Must be Specific Denial Withdrawal of Withdrawn plea is Judicial Admission Plea/Admission
    [Show full text]
  • Preserving the Record
    Chapter Seven: Preserving the Record Edward G. O’Connor, Esquire Patrick R. Kingsley, Esquire Echert Seamans Cherin & Mellot Pittsburgh PRESERVING THE RECORD I. THE IMPORTANCE OF PRESERVING THE RECORD. Evidentiary rulings are seldom the basis for a reversal on appeal. Appellate courts are reluctant to reverse because of an error in admitting or excluding evidence, and sometimes actively search for a way to hold that a claim of error in an evidence ruling is barred. R. Keeton, Trial Tactics and Methods, 191 (1973). It is important, therefore, to preserve the record in the trial court to avoid giving the Appellate Court the opportunity to ignore your claim of error merely because of a technicality. II. PRESERVING THE RECORD WHERE THE TRIAL COURT HAS LET IN YOUR OPPONENT’S EVIDENCE. A. The Need to Object: 1. Preserving the Issue for Appeal. A failure to object to the admission of evidence ordinarily constitutes a waiver of the right to object to the admissibility or use of that evidence. Taylor v. Celotex Corp., 393 Pa. Super. 566, 574 A.2d 1084 (1990). If there is no objection, the court is not obligated to exclude improper evidence being offered. Errors in admitting evidence at trial are usually waived on appeal unless a proper, timely objection was made during the trial. Commonwealth v. Collins, 492 Pa. 405, 424 A.2d 1254 (1981). The rules of appellate procedure are meant to afford the trial judge an opportunity to correct any mistakes that have been made before these mistakes can be a basis of appeal. A litigator will not be allowed to ambush the trial judge by remaining silent at trial and voice an objection to the Appellate Court only after an unfavorable verdict or judgment is reached.
    [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]
  • An Introduction to the Rules of Evidence Applicable to Collection Cases in Maryland Trial Courts Lynn Mclain University of Baltimore, [email protected]
    University of Baltimore Law ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law All Faculty Scholarship Faculty Scholarship 7-30-2002 An Introduction To The Rules Of Evidence Applicable To Collection Cases In Maryland Trial Courts Lynn McLain University of Baltimore, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac Part of the Evidence Commons, and the Legal Education Commons Recommended Citation Lynn McLain, An Introduction To The Rules Of Evidence Applicable To Collection Cases In Maryland Trial Courts, (2002). Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac/916 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE RULES OF EVIDENCE ApPLICABLE TO COLLECTION CASES IN MARYLAND TRIAL COURTS Prof. Lynn McLain University of Baltimore School of Law July 30, 2002 ~ PROFESSOR LYNN McLAIN ~ University of Baltimore School of Law John and Frances Angelos Law Center 1420 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201-5779 Professor McLain (J.D., 1974, with distinction, Duke University School of Law), was an associate at Piper & Marbury, a graduate fellow at Duke, and then in 1977 joined the faculty at the University of Baltimore School of Law, where she is the Dean Joseph Curtis Faculty Fellow and teaches courses in evidence and copyright law. Prof. McLain is admitted to the bars of the Maryland Court of Appeals (December 1974), the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (March 1975), and the United States Supreme Court (March 1990).
    [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]
  • "Ancient Documents" As Evidence
    The Archivist and "Ancient Documents" as Evidence Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/26/4/487/2744520/aarc_26_4_148255750366p7l6.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 By CYRUS B. KING* D. H. Hill Library N. C. State of the University of North Carolina at Raleigh GENERATION or more after the occurrence of a certain event, when all of the witnesses have passed from the scene, A litigation stemming from that event normally must proceed on the basis of documents created contemporaneously with the event. As the custodian of needed documents, an archivist may very well find himself embroiled in litigation that requires the use of evidentiary documents in his care. The archivist's involve- ment ordinarily results from the question of custody, one of the several conditions affecting the admissibility of a document as evidence in a court of law under the common-law ancient documents rule. For some three centuries judges have accepted the validity of the common-law rule that an ancient document, under certain con- ditions, may be taken as sufficiently genuine to be submitted to a jury as evidence without further authentication of its genuineness.1 The reason for such a rule, of course, is the impossibility of ob- taining living testimony to prove that the document is indeed gen- uine. Until a certain lapse of time, after which all of the living witnesses are gone, there is no necessity for the application of the rule. From such necessity evolved the common-law ancient documents rule. At first the requirement
    [Show full text]