DOCSLIB.ORG

11-1 Pretrial Preparation and Trial Procedures

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
11-1 Pretrial Preparation and Trial Procedures CURTIS ALVA* DERRICK HIBBARD** 11 PRETRIAL PREPARATION AND TRIAL PROCEDURES; DIRECT EXAMINATION, CROSS-EXAMINATION, REDIRECT, AND REBUTTAL I. PRETRIAL PREPARATION A. [§11.1] Introduction B. Issues Regarding Exhibits 1. [§11.2] Self-Authentication 2. [§11.3] Hearsay And Business Records 4. [§11.4] Premarking Potential Trial Exhibits C. Simplifying Proof 1. [§11.5] In General 2. [§11.6] Use Of Pretrial Pleadings 3. [§11.7] Requests For Admission 4. [§11.8] Pretrial Stipulations 5. [§11.9] Judicial Notice On Request Of Party 6. [§11.10] Judicial Notice On Court Motion D. [§11.11] Use Of Summaries And Indexes E. [§11.12] Preparation Of Witnesses For Testimony On Direct And Cross-Examination F. [§11.13] Attendance Of Witnesses At Trial *J.D., 1988, Yale University. Mr. Alva is a member of The Florida Bar, and is also admitted to practice in Delaware. He is a partner with Alva & Gleizer, PLLC, in West Palm Beach. **J.D., 2011, University of Miami. Mr. Hibbard is a member of The Florida Bar, and is also admitted to practice in North Carolina. He is an associate with Locke Lord LLP, in West Palm Beach. 11-1 II. DIRECT EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES A. Rules Of Direct Examination 1. [§11.14] Form Of Question 2. [§11.15] Refreshing Recollection Of Witness 3. [§11.16] Judicial Control Of Witness Examination 4. [§11.17] Offer Of Proof 5. [§11.18] Objecting To Admissibility Of Evidence 6. [§11.19] Use Of Interpreters B. Calling Adverse Party Or Hostile Witness 1. [§11.20] In General 2. [§11.21] Adverse Parties 3. [§11.22] Hostile Or Unwilling Witnesses III. CROSS-EXAMINATION A. [§11.23] Scope Of Cross-Examination B. Exceeding Scope Of Direct Examination Testimony 1. [§11.24] In General 2. [§11.25] Prior Inconsistent Statements 3. [§11.26] Prior Convictions 4. [§11.27] Bias And Contradictory Testimony Of Other Witnesses 5. [§11.28] Objections To Cross-Examination IV. REDIRECT EXAMINATION A. [§11.29] Scope Of Redirect Examination B. [§11.30] Use Of Prior Consistent Statements C. [§11.31] Redirect Examination Of Experts D. [§11.32] Additional Case Law V. REBUTTAL A. [§11.33] Admissibility B. [§11.34] Introduction Of Prior Inconsistent Statements VI. EXPERT WITNESS OPINION TESTIMONY A. [§11.35] In General B. [§11.36] Qualifying Expert C. Subjects Of Expert Testimony 1. [§11.37] In General 2. [§11.38] Specialized Knowledge Or Experience 11-2 3. New Or Novel Scientific Principles a. [§11.39] Introduction b. [§11.40] Pre-2013 Amendments To Florida Evidence Code c. [§11.41] Post-2013 Amendments To Florida Evidence Code D. [§11.42] Form Of Opinion E. [§11.43] Basis Of Expert Opinion F. [§11.44] Hypothetical Questions G. Examination Of Expert With Secondary Authority 1. [§11.45] Direct And Redirect Examination 2. [§11.46] Cross-Examination VII. USE OF DEPOSITIONS AT TRIAL A. [§11.47] In General B. [§11.48] Impeachment; Use Of Portion Of Deposition C. [§11.49] Testimony Of Party Or Corporate Representative D. [§11.50] Unavailable Witness E. [§11.51] Expert Witness F. [§11.52] Exceptional Circumstances G. [§11.53] Objections To Admissibility VIII. EXCLUDING WITNESSES; CHANGED OR NEW EXPERT OPINIONS; EXHIBITS A. [§11.54] Invoking Rule Of Sequestration B. [§11.55] Violation Of Sequestration Rule C. [§11.56] Undisclosed Witnesses D. [§11.57] Changed Or New Expert Opinions E. [§11.58] Limitation On Number Of Witnesses F. [§11.59] Undisclosed Exhibits 11-3 I. PRETRIAL PREPARATION A. [§11.1] Introduction This chapter presents issues involved in preparing for and participating in trial under Florida law. This chapter does not include trial or preparation issues that are not addressed in Florida statutes or cases, such as developing a winning case theme, selecting the best order of appearance for witnesses, or effectively structuring witness testimony. There are many helpful publications that practitioners can consult for advice on these subjects, including Mauet, FUNDAMENTALS OF TRIAL TECHNIQUES (Little, Brown & Co. 3d ed. 1992); FLORIDA CIVIL TRIAL PRACTICE (Fla. Bar CLE 11th ed. 2017); Ramirez, FLORIDA CIVIL PROCEDURE (Michie 3d ed. 2002), FLORIDA PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE: CIVIL TRIAL PREPARATION (Fla. Bar CLE 8th ed. 2017). Many of the cases cited in this chapter involve criminal law or other noncommercial litigation subjects. Nevertheless, the evidentiary rulings and principles discussed in these cases apply generally to business litigation. Policy considerations may differ because of the application of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and the desire of the courts to protect, through due process procedures, the rights of the accused, especially those rights guaranteed by the constitution. See Conner v. State, 748 So.2d 950 (Fla. 2000). However, civil litigants, like criminal litigants, are entitled to procedural due process, and the Florida Evidence Code applies to both civil and criminal cases. A court may also apply different considerations on certain evidentiary issues, depending on whether the fact finder is a jury or a judge. Despite these differences and limitations, Florida court opinions in other fields of law can often assist the commercial litigator in preparing for and participating in trial. While preparing, counsel must remember the ethical duties that arise in the context of a trial. These include, but are not limited to, “not . assert[ing] or controvert[ing] an issue [in a proceeding], unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law,” Rule Reg. Fla. Bar 4-3.1; 11-4 not concealing “legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction” known by an attorney “to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel,” Rule 4-3.3(a)(3); and not knowingly disobeying “an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists,” as, for example, if the trial court previously entered an order granting a motion in limine to exclude evidence but, at trial, counsel persists in asking questions regarding these excluded matters, Rule 4-3.4(c). See The Florida Bar v. Rubin, 549 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 1989); Vizzi v. State, 501 So.2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); and in trial, not alluding to “any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence” and not asserting “personal knowledge of facts in issue” (unless the lawyer is a witness), Rule 4-3.4(e). While gathering and proffering proof, counsel must also consider ethical obligations of candor toward the court and fairness to opposing counsel. Consequently, counsel must not fabricate evidence or permit any witness to offer testimony or other evidence the lawyer knows to be false; nor may an attorney assist a witness to testify falsely. Rules 4-3.3(a)(4), 4-3.4(b). Likewise, an attorney must not “unlawfully alter, destroy, or conceal a document” relevant to the proceeding, nor advise or assist another person in doing so. Rule 4-3.4(a). Absent a few exceptions, an attorney cannot request a nonclient to refrain from voluntarily providing relevant information to another party. Rule 4-3.4(f). While preparing for and participating in a trial, a litigator must follow The Florida Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct (Chapter 4 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar), available at www.floridabar.org → Rules & Ethics → Rules. A lawyer’s conduct should also follow the aspirational guidelines in The Florida Bar’s ”Guidelines for Professional Conduct,” available at www.floridabar.org → Professionalism → Resources → Guidelines for Professional Conduct, promulgated jointly by the Conference of Circuit Court Judges, the Conference of County Court Judges, and the Trial Lawyers Section of The Florida Bar. Although the Guidelines do “not have the force of law[,] trial judges . have the right and obligation to consider on a case-by-case basis issues raised by the 11-5 Guidelines.” “Guidelines for Professional Conduct,” supra, Foreword. These guiding principles are intended to provide direction to lawyers and judges on how to conduct themselves professionally in all phases of trial practice. B. Issues Regarding Exhibits 1. [§11.2] Self-Authentication Florida law requires the authentication of exhibits before their admission into evidence. See F.S. 90.901 (“Authentication or identification of evidence is required as a condition precedent to its admissibility.”). However, F.S. 90.902 lists a number of items that can be self-authenticated, i.e., admitted without extrinsic evidence of authenticity. Most of the things that are self-authenticating are items such as official documents, books, or other printed materials. Because there must be proper authentication before the admission of a videotape or photograph, videotapes and photographs are not self-authenticating. Richardson v. State, 228 So.3d 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017); Cirillo v. Davis, 732 So.2d 387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). For examples of the use of self-authenticating documents, see Holt v. Calchas, LLC, 155 So.3d 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); MBL Life Assurance Corp. v. Suarez, 768 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Ferayorni v. Hyundai Motor Co., 711 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); and Monroe County v. McCormick, 692 So.2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). If the exhibit does not meet the requirements of F.S. 90.902, it may not be admissible. For a detailed discussion of the authentication of exhibits, see §12.4 of this manual. 2. [§11.3] Hearsay & Business Records An exhibit (or any part of an exhibit) that is deemed hearsay is inadmissible unless it falls within a recognized exception. F.S. 90.802. See F.S. 90.801 (defining “hearsay” as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted”).
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]
  • Federal Rules of Evidence: 801-03, 901
    FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE: 801-03, 901 Rule 801. Definitions The following definitions apply under this article: (a) Statement. A "statement" is (1) an oral or written assertion or (2) nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as an assertion. (b) Declarant. A "declarant" is a person who makes a statement. (c) Hearsay. "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. (d) Statements which are not hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if-- (1) Prior statement by witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross- examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (A) inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition, or (B) consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, or (C) one of identification of a person made after perceiving the person; or (2) Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is (A) the party's own statement, in either an individual or a representative capacity or (B) a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth, or (C) a statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject, or (D) a statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship, or (E) a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
    [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]
  • "Nay"; the Story of John T. Bernard's Quarrel with American Foreign
    JOHN T. BERNARD and daughter Marie 82 Minnesota History €€ STOOD. Tense, nervous, I cried at the top of my voice . .'Mr. Speaker, I object!' [Wib Ilia m B.] Bankhead looked at me with murder in his eyes refusing to recognize me. I shouted again, 'Mr. Speaker, I object.' Still he refused to recognize. THE Again I objected and again four times." ^ By thus confronting the formidable presiding of­ ficer on January 6, 1937, Congressman John Toussaint Bernard of the Eighth District of northeastern Minne­ ONE MAN sota began his first and only term in the United States House of Representatives. Although he knew this out­ burst was considered unbecoming to a freshman con­ gressman, Bernard held convictions that would not WHO allow him to accept the attempt of the speaker of the House to hurry through the unanimous-consent reso­ lution in question. That resolution would have per­ mitted the measure on the ffoor — a "neutrality" VOTED measure to prohibit the sale of munitions to either the republican Loyalist or the challenging rebel Fas­ cist factions in the civil war that had been ravaging Spain for the six months since July, 1936 — to be "NAY" considered and voted upon without first being sub­ mitted to committee for debate. Later on the same day, January 6, Bernard further jeopardized his career by voting against the arms em­ bargo resolution. It had been urgently forwarded to Congress by President Franklin D. Rooseveff, passed The Story of unanimously by the Senate, and, despite Bernard's opposition, was to pass 431 votes to 1 in the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Marvel/ Dc Secret Files A.R.G.U.S / S.H.I.E.L.D
    MARVEL/ DC SECRET FILES During these sessions you will take place of one of these superheroes from both worlds to discuss the take on action, the strategy, explain the reasons to proceed from certain way and giving enough intelligence and ideas to approach conflicted countries and regions where certain heroes from an specific nationality couldn’t enter due to political motives. OVERVIEW Dangerous objects and devices have fallen into the hands of both Marvel and DC villains. It is the mission of the UN to assign rescue missions of these objects located in different parts of both universes to avoid a possible collision of worlds and being used against humanity. The General Assembly of the United Nations and the Security Council has given special powers to heroes of different countries (and universes) to take action on behalf of the governments of the world to avoid a catastrophe and to be able to fight with the opposing forces that have taken possession of these devices, threatening humanity with them and disrupting world peace forming a Special Force. Recon missions have been done by Black Widow, Catwoman, Hawkeye and Plastic Man and we have gathered information of different objects that are guarded by villains in different locations of both universes. Some in the Marvel universe and others in the DC universe. Each artifact has been enclosed in a magic bubble that prevents its use to any being that has possession of it. But this enchantment created by Doctor Strange and Doctor Fate has expiration time. Within 48 hours, it will be deactivated and anyone who has any of these devices in their possession will be able to freely use them.
    [Show full text]
  • The Applicability of the Character Evidence Rule to Corporations
    KIM.DOC 12/20/00 2:32 PM CHARACTERISTICS OF SOULLESS PERSONS: THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CHARACTER EVIDENCE RULE TO CORPORATIONS ∗ Susanna M. Kim Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404, the character evidence rule, it is well established that evidence of character generally is not admissible to show that a person acted in conformity with that char- acter on a particular occasion. No consensus exists, however, as to whether the character evidence rule should also apply to corpora- tions. In this article, Professor Kim argues that the ban on character evidence should not be extended to corporations. Professor Kim be- gins with a discussion of various rationales offered to support the character evidence rule, emphasizing Kantian conceptions of human autonomy. She then examines varying definitions of “character” and concludes that character may best be regarded as a reflection of the internal operating system of the human organism. Next, Professor Kim turns to an analysis of the personhood of corporations and de- termines that corporations are persons and moral actors with the ca- pacity to possess character. This corporate character is separate and apart from the character of the corporation’s individual members and reflects the internal operating system of the corporate organization. Finally, Professor Kim suggests that the human autonomy ra- tionale for the character evidence rule does not apply with equal force to corporations. She then concludes with an examination of the prac- tical implications of excluding corporations from the protections af- forded individuals under Rule 404. To a seemingly ever-increasing extent the members of society, individual and corporate alike, are awash in an existential sea, out ∗ Associate Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Click Above for a Preview, Or Download
    JACK KIRBY COLLECTOR THIRTY-NINE $9 95 IN THE US . c n I , s r e t c a r a h C l e v r a M 3 0 0 2 © & M T t l o B k c a l B FAN FAVORITES! THE NEW COPYRIGHTS: Angry Charlie, Batman, Ben Boxer, Big Barda, Darkseid, Dr. Fate, Green Lantern, RETROSPECTIVE . .68 Guardian, Joker, Justice League of America, Kalibak, Kamandi, Lightray, Losers, Manhunter, (the real Silver Surfer—Jack’s, that is) New Gods, Newsboy Legion, OMAC, Orion, Super Powers, Superman, True Divorce, Wonder Woman COLLECTOR COMMENTS . .78 TM & ©2003 DC Comics • 2001 characters, (some very artful letters on #37-38) Ardina, Blastaar, Bucky, Captain America, Dr. Doom, Fantastic Four (Mr. Fantastic, Human #39, FALL 2003 Collector PARTING SHOT . .80 Torch, Thing, Invisible Girl), Frightful Four (Medusa, Wizard, Sandman, Trapster), Galactus, (we’ve got a Thing for you) Gargoyle, hercules, Hulk, Ikaris, Inhumans (Black OPENING SHOT . .2 KIRBY OBSCURA . .21 Bolt, Crystal, Lockjaw, Gorgon, Medusa, Karnak, C Front cover inks: MIKE ALLRED (where the editor lists his favorite things) (Barry Forshaw has more rare Kirby stuff) Triton, Maximus), Iron Man, Leader, Loki, Machine Front cover colors: LAURA ALLRED Man, Nick Fury, Rawhide Kid, Rick Jones, o Sentinels, Sgt. Fury, Shalla Bal, Silver Surfer, Sub- UNDER THE COVERS . .3 GALLERY (GUEST EDITED!) . .22 Back cover inks: P. CRAIG RUSSELL Mariner, Thor, Two-Gun Kid, Tyrannus, Watcher, (Jerry Boyd asks nearly everyone what (congrats Chris Beneke!) Back cover colors: TOM ZIUKO Wyatt Wingfoot, X-Men (Angel, Cyclops, Beast, n their fave Kirby cover is) Iceman, Marvel Girl) TM & ©2003 Marvel Photocopies of Jack’s uninked pencils from Characters, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT of INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION in Re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMEN
    USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3279 filed 03/22/19 page 1 of 354 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION ) Case No. 3:05-MD-527 RLM In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE ) (MDL 1700) SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT ) PRACTICES LITIGATION ) ) ) THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ) ) Carlene Craig, et. al. v. FedEx Case No. 3:05-cv-530 RLM ) Ground Package Systems, Inc., ) ) PROPOSED FINAL APPROVAL ORDER This matter came before the Court for hearing on March 11, 2019, to consider final approval of the proposed ERISA Class Action Settlement reached by and between Plaintiffs Leo Rittenhouse, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Berry, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Sylvia O’Brien, Neal Bergkamp, and Dominic Lupo1 (collectively, “the Named Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and the Certified Class, and Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (“FXG”) (collectively, “the Parties”), the terms of which Settlement are set forth in the Class Action Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) attached as Exhibit A to the Joint Declaration of Co-Lead Counsel in support of Preliminary Approval of the Kansas Class Action 1 Carlene Craig withdrew as a Named Plaintiff on November 29, 2006. See MDL Doc. No. 409. Named Plaintiffs Ronald Perry and Alan Pacheco are not movants for final approval and filed an objection [MDL Doc. Nos. 3251/3261]. USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3279 filed 03/22/19 page 2 of 354 Settlement [MDL Doc. No. 3154-1]. Also before the Court is ERISA Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees and for Payment of Service Awards to the Named Plaintiffs, filed with the Court on October 19, 2018 [MDL Doc.
    [Show full text]
  • Forensic DNA Analysis: Issues
    US. Departmentof Justice Officeof JusticeProgmm Bureau of Justice Sta!ktics U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Steven D. Dillingham, Ph.D. Director Acknowledgments. This report was prepared by SEARCH Group, Inc., Gary L. Bush, Chairman, and Gary R. Cooper, Executive Director. The project director was Sheila J. Barton, Director, Law and Policy Program. This report was written by Robert R. Belair, SEARCH General Counsel, with assistance from Robert L. Marx, System Specialist, and Judith A. Ryder, Director, Corporate Communications. Special thanks are extended to Dr. Paul Ferrara, Director, Bureau of Forensic Science, Commonwealth of Virginia. The federal project monitor was Carol G. Kaplan, Chief, Federal Statistics and Information Policy Branch, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Report of work performed under B JS Grant No. 87-B J-CX-K079, awarded to SEARCH Group, Inc., 73 11 Greenhaven Drive, Suite 145, Sacramento, California 95831. Contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views, policies or legal analyses of the Bureau of Justice Statistics or the U.S. Department of Justice. Copyright O SEARCH Group, Inc. 1991 The U.S. Department of Justice authorizes any person to reproduce, publish, translate or otherwise use all or any part of the copyrighted material in this publication with the exception of those items indicating that they are copyrighted or reprinted by any source other than SEARCH Group, Inc. The Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs, coordinates the activities of the following program offices and bureaus: the Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Institute of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
    [Show full text]
  • The Basic Elements of Direct Examination
    The basic elements of direct examination * By: F. Dennis Saylor IV and Daniel I. Small ) February 24, 2017 In theory, at least, an effective direct examination should be one of the easiest things to accomplish in the courtroom. The witness is almost always friendly; in fact, it’s often your own client. The testimony is almost always entirely predictable. And the goal is usually pretty straightforward: telling your side of the story. Nonetheless, too many direct examinations are neither as clear nor as compelling as they ought to be. Maybe that’s because too many lawyers view direct as a simple, almost mechanical, task: Just put your witness on the stand and press “play.” But a truly effective direct examination cannot be created on the fly; it requires careful organization and planning. Moreover, it requires discipline — in particular, the discipline to ask questions carefully, without leading and without excess “noise.” In our upcoming columns, we will talk about different parts of the challenge of effective direct examination. But let’s begin at the beginning. There are six basic elements of an effective direct examination: (1) introducing the witness, (2) setting the stage, (3) telling the story, (4) showing the evidence, (5) defusing problems and (6) concluding effectively. 1. Introducing the witness Most lawyers ask a handful of questions up front to introduce and “humanize” the witness. A few questions about a witness’s background (such as residence, occupation, family or education) are normally permitted, even if technically they aren’t always entirely relevant. But be careful not to overdo this.
    [Show full text]
  • Proffer Agreements
    BAR OURNAL J FEATURE States Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of New York provides: [T]he Office may use any statements made by Proffer Agreements Client: (A) to obtain leads to other evidence, which evidence may be used by the Office in any stage of a criminal prosecution (including What Is Your Client Waiving but not limited to detention hearing, trial or sentencing), civil or administrative proceeding, (B) as substantive evidence to and Is It Worth the Risk? cross-examine Client, should Client testify, and (C) as substantive evidence to rebut, directly or indirectly, any evidence offered or elicited, BY JOHN MCCAFFREY & JON OEBKER or factual assertions made, by or on behalf of Client at any stage of a criminal prosecution (including but not limited to detention hearing, our client is the target of a federal a plea of guilty later withdrawn” is inadmissible trial or sentencing).(Emphasis added.) investigation. He is offered the against the defendant. It is well-settled that the In practice, the particular language of these opportunity to speak with prosecutors protections afforded under these rules can be agreements determines what triggering events Yand investigators so that they have “his side” waived in proffer agreements, thus opening the open the door to the admission of a client’s of the story before determining whether door for a client’s statements to be used against proffer statements at trial. For example, in charges will be pursued. You may ask yourself, him at trial. United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 United States v. Gonzalez, 309 F.3d 882 (5th “What do I have to lose?” Well, the answer is U.S.
    [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]