DOCSLIB.ORG

Trial Objections Cheat Sheet by Thomson Reuters

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Trial Objections Cheat Sheet by Thomson Reuters SAMPLE: PERSONAL INJURY PRACTICAL GUIDANCE-CHECKLIST Trial Objections Cheat Sheet By Thomson Reuters The ability to quickly object to an improper question, or respond to an objection, is an important skill. This Checklist sets out the grounds and rationale for the most common objections, as well as responses and exceptions to those objections. Contents • Introduction ................................................. 3 • Objection: Improper Re-Examination .......... 7 • Objection: Abusive or Harassing ................. 4 • Objection: Irrelevant ................................... 7 • Objection: Ambiguous or Vague .................. 4 • Objection: Leading the Witness .................. 7 – Exception: Non-Controversial Matters ......7 • Objection: Apology ..................................... 4 – Exception: Adverse Witness .......................8 – Exception: Testimony ..................................4 – Exception: Hostile Witness .........................8 – Exception: Criminal Proceedings ................4 – Exception: Statements Around • Objection: Opinion ...................................... 8 the Apology .................................................4 – Exception: Lay Opinion...............................8 – Exception: Expert Opinion ..........................8 • Objection: Argumentative ........................... 4 • Objection: Needless Repetitions (Asked and • Objection: Personal Opinion of Counsel ...... 8 Answered) ................................................... 4 • Objection: Prejudicial .................................. 8 – Exception: Clarification ..............................4 • Objection: Privilege (Solicitor-Client) .......... 8 • Objection: Authenticity Not Established ..... 4 – Exception: Voluntary Waiver ......................9 • Objection: Calls for a Legal Conclusion ....... 4 – Exception: Implied Waiver ..........................9 – Exception: No Legal Analysis Required .....5 – Exception: Inadvertent Waiver ...................9 – Exception: Communications in • Objection: Character Evidence .................... 5 Furtherance of Crime or Fraud....................9 – Exception: Character in Issue .....................5 – Exception: Public Safety .............................9 – Exception: Similar Fact Evidence ...............5 – Exception: Innocence at Stake ...................9 • Objection: Facts Not in Evidence ................. 5 • Objection: Privilege (Litigation) .................. 9 – Exception: Good Faith Basis ......................5 – Exception: Litigation Has Ended ................9 – Exception: Waiver ..................................... 10 • Objection: Hearsay ...................................... 5 – Exception: Necessary and Reliable ............6 • Objection: Privilege (Settlement) ...............10 – Exception: Not Admitted for Truth of Its – Exception: Waiver ..................................... 10 Contents ......................................................6 – Exception: Admissions ...............................6 • Objection: Privilege (Common Interest)......10 – Exception: Declaration Against Interest ....6 – Exception: No Underlying Privilege ......... 10 – Exception: Dying Declarations ...................6 – Exception: Waiver ..................................... 10 – Exception: Business Records .....................6 • Objection: Privilege (Case-by-Case) ...........10 – Exception: Medical Records .......................7 – Res Gestae ..................................................7 • Objection: Speculative ...............................10 – Testimony from Another Proceeding .........7 2 Copyright © Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. Introduction At trial, timely objections are necessary to: • Prevent unfavourable and inadmissible evidence from making its way into the record. • Preserve possible grounds of appeal. Objections should be used sparingly. Too many objections can irritate the judge, and an overruled objection can have the opposite of the intended effect by actually highlighting the evidence you were attempting to exclude. While the grounds and authorities for some of the most important objections are set out below, these are not intended as scripts but as a reference tool to help you deal with unanticipated objections on the spot. When making an objection, you should: • Make your objection before the witness has an opportunity to answer the question. • Stand up to get the court’s attention. • If the judge has not noticed that you are standing, you can try to get the judge’s attention by saying “Your Honour (or “My Lord” or “Justice”, depending on local practice), I have an objection”. • Succinctly state the grounds for your objection. Direct your submission to the judge, not opposing counsel. • Sit down when you have finished stating the reason for your objection. The judge may give the opposing counsel a chance to respond before ruling. • Rise again if the judge gives you a chance to respond to examining counsel’s argument. • Get the ruling on the record. If the judge’s ruling is not clear, ask for clarification. This may be important on appeal. Copyright © Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 3 OBJECTION: ABUSIVE OR HARASSING Exception: Statements Around the Apology Unnecessarily aggressive cross-examination will not Statements of fact made along with the apology may be tolerated. A lawyer must not needlessly abuse or be admissible to the extent they are separate thoughts harass a witness (Law Society of Upper Canada’s Rules (Cormack v. Chalmers, 2015 CarswellOnt 13944 (Ont. of Professional Conduct, Rule 5.1-2(m); Law Society of S.C.J.), at paragraphs 8-9). Alberta Code of Conduct, Rule 5.1-2(s); British Columbia Code of Professional Conduct, Rule 5-1(2)(m)). OBJECTION: ARGUMENTATIVE A party may object to, and a court may limit, cross- A question is argumentative when it requires a fact examination that is abusive (R. v. Lowe, 2009 CarswellBC witness to accept an inference put to it by the lawyer 1923 (B.C. C.A.), at paragraph 51), irrelevant, overly that has not been proven. Merely asking someone to wordy or insulting (R. v. Jacobson, 2004 CarswellOnt agree or disagree with a statement is not necessarily 5733 (Ont. S.C.J.)). argumentative. The question must assume as true matters to which the witness has not testified and which OBJECTION: AMBIGUOUS OR VAGUE are in dispute between the parties (R. v. Buxbaum, 1989 CarswellOnt 89 (Ont. C.A.), at paragraph 18, leave to A witness does not have to answer a question that is appeal refused 1989 WL 935714 (S.C.C.)). ambiguous or vague (Ortega v. 1005640 Ontario Inc., 1999 CarswellOnt 2002 (Ont. Master)), confusing, unclear Examiners are not to argue with a witness or put forth overly broad or misleading (Forlii (Guardian of) v. Wolley, arguments in the guise of questioning (EnCana Corp. v. 2002 CarswellBC 1493 (B.C. S.C. [In Chambers]), at Devon Canada Corp., 2009 CarswellAlta 1084 (Alta. Q.B.), paragraph 9). at paragraph 4) The court may intervene to curtail or clarify questions that are vague, wordy or repetitive (R. v. Snow, 2004 OBJECTION: NEEDLESS REPETITIONS (ASKED CarswellOnt 4287 (Ont. C.A.), at paragraphs 22 and 25). AND ANSWERED) The mere fact that something has been “asked and OBJECTION: APOLOGY answered” is generally not considered a valid objection. Where a question is being repeated to the point of being An apology is inadmissible in evidence in a civil or abusive or berating the witness, or a waste of court time, administrative proceeding or arbitration under Ontario’s it may be appropriate to object (R. v. McLaughlin, 1974 Apology Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, c. 3 (Apology Act). Similar Carswell Ont 4 (Ont.C.A.), at paragraph 22; R. v. Lowe, legislation exists in other provinces (see Alberta Evidence 2009 Carswell BC1923 (B.C. C.A.), at paragraph 51). Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. A-18, section 26.1; Apology Act, 2006 S.B.C. c. 19 (BC Apology Act)). An apology: Exception: Clarification • Is an expression of sympathy or regret; a statement Where the question is repeated because the witness’s that a person is sorry. answer was vague or incomplete, the objection will be • Need not contain or imply an admission of fault overruled (Schindler Elevator Corp. v. 1147335 Ontario or liability. Inc., 2010 CarswellOnt 5400 (Ont. Master), at paragraph Exception: Testimony 26; 694984 Alberta Ltd. v. Badger Daylighting Inc., 2014 CarswellAlta 770 (Alta. Q.B.), at paragraphs 38 and 39). In Ontario, admissions made in the course of testifying in a civil proceeding, including out-of-court testimony, are excluded from the protections provided by the OBJECTION: AUTHENTICITY NOT ESTABLISHED Apology Act and therefore admissible. The same is true A private document or real evidence is inadmissible in in Alberta, though the BC Apology Act is silent. court until a witness has: • Identified the document or real evidence. Exception: Criminal Proceedings • Established its connection to the events under Provincial apologies acts do not apply to criminal consideration by the court. prosecutions as criminal law falls under federal • Vouched for its authenticity and convinced the trier jurisdiction. of fact that the document is what it purports to be. In Ontario, an apology is also admissible in the (R.v.Schwartz, 1988 Carswell Man 170 (S.C.C.), at prosecution of a provincial offence. The Alberta Evidence paragraphs 64 to 66). Act, R.S.A. 2000,c.A-18, simply uses the word ”offence” in the
Load more

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]
  • The Use of Similar Fact in Criminal Proceedings: an Updated Framework
    Published on 11 December 2020 THE USE OF SIMILAR FACT IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: AN UPDATED FRAMEWORK [2020] SAL Prac 25 CHEN Siyuan LLB (National University of Singapore); LLM (Harvard). CHANG Wen Yee LLB candidate (Singapore Management University). I. Introduction 1 When confronted with the question of whether to admit similar fact for criminal cases, courts in Singapore are often faced with balancing potentially competing norms in the form of evidential expediency and fairness to the accused. Specifically, although similar fact may help establish the ingredients of an offence, there exists a real risk that any resulting conviction will be based heavily on the past behaviour or disposition of the accused and this potential weakness in inferential reasoning through indirect proof will – to use the word in its broadest sense – prejudice the accused.1 2 The 1996 Court of Appeal decision in Tan Meng Jee v Public Prosecutor2 (“Tan Meng Jee”) tried to address these concerns in detail. But even after almost 25 years, this case remains the only modern apex court decision on how the similar fact rule is to be 1 Taking a step back, one must bear in mind too features of the Singapore criminal justice process. As a matter of criminal procedure, the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) is generally considered to tilt more in favour of crime control. As a matter of substantive criminal law, potentially severe sanctions could follow upon conviction. As a matter of standard of proof, a strict insistence on corroboration is generally not required, and any proving of a defence must be done on a balance of probabilities, which is a higher standard than casting reasonable doubt.
    [Show full text]
  • Similar Fact Evidence - Catchwords and Cartwheels Ronald B
    Similar Fact Evidence - Catchwords and Cartwheels Ronald B. Sldar* Wigmore once called it a "vast morass of authority".' "It is hopeless to attempt to reconcile the precedents" was his judgment in 1940.2 In 1972 England's Criminal Law Revision Committee said it "proved far the most difficult of all the [evidence] topics" they had to consider3 Each was referring to the question of the ad- missibility of evidence that the accused on one or more other occasions engaged in misconduct similar to that presently charged against him: the admissibility of so-called "similar fact" evidence, To this vexing subject have been added two further precedents: D.P.P.v. Boardman4 and LeBlanc v. The Queen.6 Both are significant, if for very different reasons. Boardman may be, as one writer has called it, "an intellectual breakthrough". 6 LeBlanc may be, for those of us who take the exclusionary side of the rule seriously, most ominous. The admissibility of an item of similar fact evidence is a question of law for the trial judge. Its ultimate weight is a question of fact for the trier of fact. When faced with the prosecution's offer of similar fact evidence7 the trial judge has three distinct questions *Associate Professor of Law, McGill University. 1 This phrase is attributed to Wigmore by Cowen and Carter in their essay, "The Admissibility of Evidence of Similar Facts: A Re-Examination", Essays on the Law of Evidence (1956), 107, though I have not been able to locate the phrase in any of the three editions of Wigmore's treatise.' 2Wigmore, Evidence 3d ed.
    [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]
  • Appellant's Factum
    Court File No. 33694 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (On appeal from the Court of Appeal for British Columbia) BETWEEN: LARRY WAYNE JESSE Appellant AND: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent An Order has been made in this case directing that the identity of the complainant(s) and any information that could disclose their identity not be published in any document or broadcast in any way pursuant to Section 486.4 (1) of the Criminal Code APPELLANT'S FACTUM Gil D. McKinnon, Q.C. Gowling Lafleur Henderson #I500 - 701 West Georgia Street 26'h Floor,lGO Elgin Street Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4H1 Ottawa, ON KIP 1C3 Telephone: (604) 601-561 6 Telephone: (613) 233-1781 Facsimile: (604) 601-561 7 Facsimile: (613) 563-9869 E: [email protected] E: henrv.brown@~owlinas.com Counsel for the Appellant Henry S. Brown, Q.C. Ottawa Agents for the Appellant Jennifer Duncan Burke-Robertson Elizabeth Campbell Barristers and Solicitors Attorney General of British Columbia 70 Gloucester Street Criminal Appeals & Special Prosecutions Ottawa, ON K2P OA2 6th Floor, 865 Hornby Street Telephone: (613) 236-9665 Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2G3 Facsimile:(613) 235-4430 Telephone: (604) 660-1 126 E: [email protected] Facsimile: (604) 660-1 133 E: Jennier.Duncan@,qov.bc.ca Counsel for the Respondent Robert E. Houston, Q.C. Ottawa Agents for the Respondent INDEX Page Part l Statement of Facts A. Overview B. Appellant's Record C. Similar Fact Voir Dire D. Appellant Testified on Trial E. B.C. Supreme Court's Reasons for Judgment F. B.C.
    [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]
  • Approved Judgment
    Neutral Citation Number: [2020] EWCA Civ 1088 Case No: B4/2020/1196 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT Her Honour Judge Jacklin QC ZE17P01593 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 18 August 2020 Before : LORD JUSTICE DAVID RICHARDS LORD JUSTICE HICKINBOTTOM and LORD JUSTICE PETER JACKSON --------------------- R v P (Children: Similar Fact Evidence) --------------------- Maggie Jones (instructed by Duncan Lewis Solicitors) for the Appellant Mother Tom Wilson (instructed by Freemans Solicitors) for the Respondent Father Hearing date: 6 August 2020 --------------------- Approved Judgment Covid-19 Protocol: This judgment was handed down remotely by circulation to the parties’ representatives by email, release to BAILII and publication on the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be at 10:30am on Tuesday, 18 August 2020. Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. R-P (Children) Lord Justice Peter Jackson: Introduction 1. This is an appeal from a case management decision to exclude evidence in family proceedings. The proceedings are a father's application for contact with children now aged 5 and 2. The mother opposes contact on the basis that the father had subjected her to extreme coercive and controlling behaviour and to sexual abuse, including rape. In support of her case, she wants to rely on evidence of what she argues is strikingly similar coercive and controlling behaviour by the father towards another woman, with whom he began a relationship shortly after her relationship with him ended. It was that evidence that was excluded.
    [Show full text]
  • Of 5 in the THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT FOR
    IN THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA Criminal Justice and Trial Division STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO: 17-CF-017252 v. HOWELL DONALDSON, DIVISION: TR-3 Defendant. ________________________/ ORDER ON THE NOTICE OF THE STATE’S INTENT TO INTRODUCE SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CRIMES, PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTES, EVIDENCE CODE RULE 90.404(2) IN EACH SEPARATE TRIAL OF ALL COUNTS THIS MATTER is before the Court on the “Notice of the State’s Intent to Introduce Similar Fact Evidence of Other Crimes, Pursuant to Florida Statutes, Evidence Code Rule 90.404(2), in Each Separate Trial of All Counts,” filed on October 9, 2020; the “State’s Memorandum of Law in Support of the Admissibility of Similar Fact Evidence of Other Crimes (Williams Rule Evidence) and Factual Proffer of Such,” filed on November 13, 2020; and “Defendant’s Response to State’s Request to Admit Williams Rule Evidence,” filed on January 20, 2021. The Court held a hearing on the State’s notice on March 19, 2021. After reviewing the State’s notice and memorandum, Defendant’s response, the argument presented at the March 19, 2021, hearing, the court file, and the record, the Court finds as follows: Previously, the defense filed a motion to sever the four charged offenses in the instant case number. The Court orally granted Defendant’s request on October 7, 2020, and provided a written order on January 12, 2021, in which it found the instant case consisted of “similar but separate episodes that must be tried separately.” Following the Court’s oral ruling, the State filed the instant notice in which it seeks the admission of evidence of all four murders in the separate trials for each individual murder.
    [Show full text]
  • Rule Against Impeaching One's Own Witness: a Reconsideration, The
    Missouri Law Review Volume 31 Issue 3 Summer 1966 Article 2 Summer 1966 Rule against Impeaching One's Own Witness: A Reconsideration, The Ralph C. Thomas Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Ralph C. Thomas, Rule against Impeaching One's Own Witness: A Reconsideration, The, 31 MO. L. REV. (1966) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol31/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Thomas: Thomas: Rule against Impeaching THE RULE AGAINST IMPEACHING ONE'S OWN WITNESS: A RECONSIDERATION RALPH C. THOMAS* One of the general rules of which the law is so fond is that you cannot impeach your own witness. This rule, subject to exceptions as are all general rules, comes into play when the lawyer attempts to question in any fashion the correctness of the testimony offered by a witness placed by him on the stand, or his motive for giving it. The obvious rationale underlying the rule is sponsorship of the wit- ness by his proponent. This presupposes, it would seem, that all witnesses become so as a result of deliberate choice by the party using them. There- fore, if his choice has been bad he must suffer the consequences. Such a concept is so obviously foreign to the actual situation that it seems strange that the rule has survived to this day.
    [Show full text]
  • The Florida Bar Code and Rules of Evidence Committee Recommends for Adoption of the Following Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code
    The Florida Bar Code and Rules of Evidence Committee recommends for adoption of the following amendments to the Florida Evidence Code: CHAPTER 2000-316 Senate Bill No. 794 An act relating to witnesses; amending s. 90.502, F.S.; providing that a discussion or activity that is not a meeting for purposes of s. 286.011, F.S., does not waive the attorney-client privilege; amending s. 90.612, F.S.; requiring a judge to protect a witness under a specific age during interrogation and to restrict unnecessary repetition of questions; requiring that questions be stated in a form appropriate to the age and understanding of the witness; providing an effective date. Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: Section 1. Subsection (6) is added to section 90.502, Florida Statutes, to read: 90.502 Lawyer-client privilege.— (6) A discussion or activity that is not a meeting for purposes of s. 286.011 shall not be construed to waive the attorney-client privilege established in this section. This shall not be construed to constitute an exemption to either s. 119.07 or s. 286.011. Section 2. Section 90.612, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 90.612 Mode and order of interrogation and presentation.— (1) The judge shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of the interrogation of witnesses and the presentation of evidence, so as to: (a) Facilitate, through effective interrogation and presentation, the discovery of the truth. (b) Avoid needless consumption of time. (c) Protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 Witnesses, Evidence in Florida
    CHAPTER 5 WITNESSES GLENN T. BURHANS, JR.* BRIDGET SMITHA** I. [5.1] INTRODUCTION II. COMPETENCY TO TESTIFY III. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES IV. SEQUESTRATION OF WITNESSES V. REFRESHING RECOLLECTION OF WITNESS I. [5.1] INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses the competency of a person to be a witness and the examination of witnesses in general. Opinion and expert testimony are covered in Chapter 7 of this manual, and impeachment of witnesses is addressed in Chapter 6. II. COMPETENCY TO TESTIFY A. In General B. [5.11] Competency Of Children C. [5.12] Competency Of Mentally Ill Persons D. [5.13] Competency Of Interested Witnesses Dead Persons Statute E. Competency Of Judges F. Competency Of Jurors G. Competency Of Lawyers A. In General 1. [5.2] Statutory Basis 2. [5.3] What Constitutes Competency 3. [5.4] Who Determines Competency 4. [5.5] Credibility Or Competency 5. [5.6] Oath 6. [5.7] Perception Of The Subject Events 7. [5.8] Memory 8. [5.9] Communication And Interpreters 9. [5.10] Burden To Prove Incompetency 1. [5.2] Statutory Basis F.S. 90.601 provides that [e]very person is competent to be a witness, except as otherwise provided by statute. This creates a presumption of competency until the contrary is shown. Zabrani v. Riveron, 495 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). F.S. 90.601 reaffirms the previous elimination of most common-law grounds for disqualification: disqualification because of a criminal conviction has been repealed (see F.S. 90.08 (1975)); religious conviction is no longer a necessary prerequisite to testifying (see F.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Perils of Calling Your Opponent As a Witness in Your Case
    OUTSIDE PERSPECTIVES The Perils Of Calling Your Opponent As A Witness In Your Case YEARS AGO, I WATCHED A PLAINTIFF’S ing on direct did not voluntarily take the stand and, attorney fail miserably in his attempts to tell his more importantly, did not have the opportunity prior to client’s story to a jury through his very first wit- examination by the opposing counsel to fully tell his or ness – one of the named her story. Many judges under these circumstances will Michael A. Stick defendants. At a recess, a allow an adverse witness greater freedom to deviate friend said to me: “This from the standard “yes or no” answers of cross exami- just proves that you are a nation and to explain their answers. This results in fool if you try to put on your case in chief through a direct examination that is often lengthier, choppier, an adverse witness.” As self-evident as my friend’s less predictable, and ultimately less compelling than a advice might seem, it is often ignored. tight, clean cross examination of the same witness in Except under unique circumstances, examining an your opponent’s case. The time to examine an unpre- adverse witness on direct during your case in chief dictable and hostile witness is during cross examina- for any extended period of time is usually a mistake. tion and not on direct during your case in chief. To begin with, using an adverse witness as your To make matters worse, juries in particular might spokesperson is simply not a compelling way to offer sympathize more with an adverse witness being exam- your evidence at trial.
    [Show full text]