You are on page 1of 36

EVIDENCE OUTLINE

I.c INTRODUCTION
a.c MAIN REASONS FOR EVIDENCE LAW
Ú c ÚccÚ cc
ÚÚ c
   c Ú c ÚÚ c
ÚÚÚ c   c Ú Úc
Ú c  c c c  c ÚccÚ cÚÚÚcÚ  c Ú  c
 c ADMITTING/EXCLUDING EVIDENCE (FR §103)c
Ú c IT IS NOT AN ERROR TO ADMIT/EXCLUDE EVIDENCE UNLESSc
 c Substantive Right of the Party is affected, ANDc
c Admitting Evidence - ? ÚÚccÚ! c  cc c

 "c#Úc c ÚÚc cc c Úc  cc c
 c$c c   c$c? c
 c Excluding Evidence ʹ   cc Ú  c# c$ c!#c
c cc%coffer of proofcc# c   c$c &c
#ÚÚc#Úc' Úc#  c ! c
ÚÚ c FAILING TO OBJECT/MOVE TO STRIKE = Ã()
c
 c OBJECTION MUST BE TIMELY AND MUST BE SUPPORTED (GROUNDS)c
ÚÚÚ c Court may add statement which furthers information about evidencec
Ú c Jury ʹ  cc c & ccÚ $ÚÚ c Ú  c
 c USING OBJECTIONS FOR OTHER PURPOSESc
Ú c cÚ c $ Úc Ú$%*c ÚcÚc c%$"c  c
d.c MOTION IN LIMINE ʹ Úc$ c c  c c$$  $ ccÚ c#Úc !c
 c  cc cc c $ÚÚÚ Ú%cc Ú  c(Done in Chambers; NOT JURY)
i.c This is not final and you can try to introduce the evidence again during trial
e.c WAIVING OBJECTIONS
i.c INVITED ERROR ʹ Ã c%c !c c' Úcc c#Ú c  c c c $ Úc
# "c%c %c  c+ ,c#Úc c # 
1.c Does not necessarily apply to ʹ  Ú c # cc  %c c
cÚ c c cc c' Úc ! c(or ͞narratives͟)
ii.c OPENING THE DOOR ʹ Ã c%cÚ  c $ÚÚ c Ú  "cÚc
 c c cmore leniencycÚc $ÚÚc Ú  cc   
1.c POLICY ʹ c $ÚÚc Ú  c#Úc cÚc $Ú c
Ú  c%cÚc c c   c  c$c  Ú c 
iii.c ͞BITING THE BULLET͟ ʹ Ã c%c  c c$Úcc &  c Ú  c  c c
  c%c Ú #Ú c $Úc c Ú  c cÚ cc c%c c c c
Ú$ $  c  c & cc cÚÚÚ cÚ Úcc c Ú 
1.c PROBLEM ʹ  c c c Ú$cc c Ú  cc cÚc Úc
c%c$Úcc &  c c Ú  c
2.c ALSO ʹ (cÚcÚ!%"c   c%c -c!#c## ÚcÚc
 c# c  cÚccÚ  c c Ú  c%cÚ cc & 

c
c
f.c OFFERS OF PROOF
i.c Excluding Evidence without Offer of Proof ʹ .. c ?c

?
c   c
  cc c %c  c c  c c  cc Ú  c c 
1.c Mere claim that evidence was excluded is not enough for ERROR
ii.c WAYS TO ͞OFFER PROOF͟ ʹ Ú Úcc# c#Ú c#Ú c Ú%c"c  $ c
$c c c# c c Ú$% Ú  c#Ú c "cc c  c
& $cc c#Ú "c#Úc c %c  
iii.c PURPOSE ʹ · c c Ú #Úcc  $Ú csubstantial right affected
1.c When looking at record, should this evidence been admitted?
a.c DID IT AFFECT THE APPELLANT?
iv.c NOT REQUIRED ʹ (c/ c?c)( c(c
 c
?cCONTEXT
v.c CONTENTS ʹ Ã%cÚcÚc  "c    cc Ú 
vi.c IF EVIDENCE IS AN ITEM ʹ  !cÚc c c &ÚÚc  c   cÚc#Úc !cc c
 c Ú  c $ c cc c
?
c?
c
)(Ã( c?
c
1.c COURT MIGHT FURTHER ʹ  Ú c c   cc$cc c
Ú  cÚc Úc Úcc c $ÚÚÚ Ú%cc c Ú 
g.c PREJUDICE FROM ERROR IN ADMITTING EVIDENCE CURED AT TRIAL
i.c Jury Instructions ʹ   c c %c c %c  c Ú$Ú cÚc c# %c %c$ %c
Ú c c Ú  "cc c %cmust disregard the evidence
1.c THIS ON THE RECORD USUALLY MEANS HARMLESS ERROR
ii.c CURE BY VERDICT ʹ  c#cc cÚ c c c  c Ú  c
# c  c  
iii.c CURED BY OTHER EVIDENCE ʹ ͞? Úc c ,c Ú
iv.c CURED BY MISTRIAL
v.c INVITED ERROR = ·
c

h.c REVERSIBLE ERROR vs. PLAIN ERROR


i.c REVERSIBLE ERROR ʹ c$Ú ! c c   c Ú cÚcÚc c# %c c
 $c Úc cc#  c Ú c$c c $ 
1.c Must have ͞PROBABLY͟ affected the result
ii.c PLAIN ERROR ʹ  c c# ccÚcc Ú"cc %c Ú  cc c
# c c c+$Ú Ú  cc Ú ,c  c' Úcc   Ú c% $
1.c Does not need to be supported by an objection on the record
Ú c CONSTITUTIONAL ERRORc
Ú c REVERSAL UNLESS ʹ c Ú  c/ ? cc
? /.c?/c c c
c(c ?cc·c)
(c
ÚÚ c p p
  
 c c $ Úc   c ccÚÚ c
"c  Úc c$ cÚÚ c c$ %c ccÚ$ c  c
ÚÚÚÚ c c %c  cc c $ c $ c(CHAPMAN TEST)c
ÚÚÚ c MOTION TO SUPPRESS ʹ  Úc $ÚÚÚ Ú%ccÚ  c  cc c
ÚÚ c)Ú Úc
 c Fourth Amendment violation; Sixth Amendment Violation c

c
c
Ú c COMMON TYPES OF CONSTITUTIONAL ERRORSc
 c  %ÚcÚcc0 & $Ú ÚcÚcÚ Úcc Úc  c
1 c  $ÚÚc  %cÚcÚ Úcc Úc  c½p 
c
2 c  $ÚÚc c  $ c%c c   cÚ Ú%ÚccÚÚ$Ú Úc
 cÚcÚ Úcc c[    c
3 c  $ÚÚc  $ c ! cÚcÚ Úccg c
4 c  $ÚÚc  $ cÚcÚ ÚccÚ&c$  $ cÚcc c
5 c  $ÚÚc Ú  cÚ Úcc$  $  cÚ c
c
II.c PRELIMINARY ISSUES IN EVIDENCE RULINGS (FR §104)
c THE STATUTE ITSELF c
Ú c Questions of Admissibility Generally ʹ  Ú$Ú %c' Úc Úc
' ÚÚ Úcc c cc c c#Ú "c c &Ú  cc cÚÚ  "cc c
$ÚÚÚ Ú%cc Ú  "c c c  $Ú c%c cc  c ?c/c?c
·c
.c?c)( c
ÚÚ c Relevancy Conditioned on Fact ʹcà c  %c   cc Ú $ cc c
 ÚÚcc "c cc c $Úc c Ú  ccÚ Úcc
Ú  cÚÚ ccc cÚ Úcc c Ú $ cc c ÚÚc
 c EXAMPLE ʹcÃÚ c #c c Úc6c !c  c cc $ c
 "ccÚccÚÚ c c c c c #c# c "c  c c c
Ú  cÚc c cÃc c
c Testimony about speeding car might be admitted conditioned
on further evidence that a green car was there at the timec
ÚÚÚ c Hearing of Jury ʹc Úcc c $ÚÚÚ Ú%cc Úc c c  c
Ú c c   cc c %c
Ú c Testimony by Accused ʹc  c  cc $ c cc0 & $Ú Úc
c cÚ cÚc c  cÚc cÚc Ú%Úc c c
.(( 
 c
c
 c RELEVANCE ʹ JUDGE DECIDES! (104(a)) ʹ PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE STD.c
Ú c Circumstantial Evidence (rather than Direct Evidence)c
 c Judge must Determine ʹ Úc c  c Ú  c$ ! c c ' Ú c
 c$ cc c Ú! %c cÚc# c c#Úc c Ú  c
c Determine what facts make a difference in the case and if this
evidence touches on those facts (OFTEN A ͞HUNCH͟)c
ÚÚ c PRAGMATIC RELEVANCYc
 c JUDGE DECIDES #  c c Ú c#cÚc# Ú c%c cÚ!c
c  Ú ccÚc c
c7362c
ÚÚÚ c JUDGES ALSO DETERMINE HEARSAY AND BEST EVIDENCE DOCTRINE TOO!c
 c WITNESS QUALIFICATION (FRE §104(a)) ʹ PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE STD.c
Ú c Whether the Witness qualifies as an EXPERT or notc
 c LOOK AT ʹ  $Úc  "c ÚÚ"c c & Ú  c
1 c ALSO ʹcà  c c & c Ú$%cÚc  c

c
c
ÚÚ c CHILDREN IN ABUSE CASES ʹ Ã  c c  cÚ!c %c c  c Úc
Ú c & $Ú c  c0 & $Ú c  c#  c %c#Ú c c cc
ÚÚÚ c MENTALLY INCAPACITATED WITNESS COMPETENCYc
c PRIVILEGE ISSUESc
Ú c ACP ʹ   c Ú cÚc $ c#  c$ c  cÚcÚ$   c & Úc  Ú c
ÚÚ c Spousal Immunity ʹc  c  $Ú cÚc  c  c#Ú c  c$ Ú c
ÚÚÚ c Doctor/Patient;cPsychiatrist/Patient, Journalistic Privilege, etc.c
c CONFESSIONSc
Ú c ’    c cÚ c cc c & cc $ÚÚÚ Ú%c
' Úc Úcc Úc  c c  Ú cc c Úc
 c ORTHODOX RULE ʹ   c.? c  $Ú c  Ú c
1 c MASSACHUSETTS RULE ʹc  cÚc  $Ú "c c%c cc c
ÚÚ c PROBLEM ʹ ? c %cÚc & cc Ú"c c  Ú cÚ cÚcc c
Úc cc c %ccc+ c ÚcÚc c Ú,c
 c PROTECTING CRIMINAL DEFENDANTSc
Ú c FR §104 LIMIT ʹ Ú$Ú c   c Ú%Úcc c Ú$Ú %c$  c cc
 c $  cc0 & $Ú Úcc+ cÚ cÚc c  ,c
 c WHY?c8cFirst,  Ú$% Úc$c c Ú$Ú %c Úc  c
$ÚÚ c c Ú  cÚc c ' cÚ c
ÚÚ c STILL SUBJECTED ʹ c
?ccÚ cc#Úc c   c ÚÚ c
ÚÚÚ c NARROW CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE ʹc$ c Ú$%cc   cÚc c
 Ú$Ú %c ÚcÚc  c$c $ÚÚÚ Ú%c cÚ c
 c MEANING ʹc Ú$%c   ÚcÚÚ cÚ Úc cc c
 cc cÚ ccÚ c cÚ c(•  c
1 c BUT IT CAN BE USED ʹ ?c(·c  ccÃ( c
c
III.c JURY DETERMINED ISSUES
a.c CONDITIONAL RELEVANCY (FRE §104(b))
i.c à c Ú  c cÚc cÚÚc c c c %cc
 Ú$%c%c#cc$ c#Ú  cc Ú$%c  Úcc   Úc   c
  cÚ"cc cc+connect up͟ ÚÚÚ cc#Úc c
1.c If enough Evidence is introduced to permit a finding for both, then the
Jury is permitted to make the decision as to whether both are proved
2.c ~ ~Example ʹ .  c#Ú c%c Ú!!ÚccÚc  cc c
$Ú cc#c c/  Úc# cÚÚ  c%c c  c c$Ú 
a.c HAVE TO FIRST PROVE ʹ ·c/
 (c
c·9
ii.c JUDGE STANDARD OF PERSUASION ʹ +ÚÚ c Ú  c c c   c
c?.cÚ c c# cÚc  c  %c   ,c
1.c LOWER THAN PREPONDERANCE STANDARD
iii.c AUTHENTICITY ISSUES ARE JUDGED UNDER FRE §104(b)
iv.c PRIOR BAD ACTS (UNDER FRE §404(b)); PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE

c
c
IV.c RELEVANCY (READ FOOTNOTES FROM PAGES 171-193; 215-231 FOR EXAM)
a.c GENERALLY (FRE §401)
i.c RELEVANT EVIDENCE ʹ $ c Ú  c Úcany tendancycc$ ! c c
&Ú  cc %c c cÚcc '  cc c  $Ú Úcc c Úc
$ c  cc c  c cÚc# c c#Úc c Ú 
1.c THIS IS THE STANDARD OF ADMISSIBILITY
2.c MUST HAVE SOME PROBATIVE VALUE (EVEN IF VERY LITTLE)
3.c IF VERY LITTLE PROBATIVE VALUE (FRE §403)ʹ  c c &  c  c
c  ÚÚ c  c# ÚÚc c Ú c  "cÚcc c
Ú "c$Ú Úc c %"c  c %"c#  ccÚ$ "cc c
   Úcc$ Ú c Ú 
ii.c IF PROPONENT IS COUNTERING IRRELEVANT OBJECTION ʹ + c cc c
# Úcc c Ú  "c ?c·c((/(.( ,c(it͛s admissible)
1.c COURT MUST MAKE LOGICAL DETERMINATION ʹ   ccÚc
& Ú  "ccÚ  "c!#  "cc?? c 
b.c THREE POSSIBLE MATERIAL (RELEVANT) ISSUES (NEED ONE)
i.c ELEMENT OF CRIME; DEFENSE; CLAIM ʹ ( .( c(c?c
ii.c CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS
iii.c BACKGROUND INFORMATION ʹ  -cc+c ,
c.c CHARACTER EVIDENCE (FRE §404(a)) (RULE OF EXCLUSION ʹ OPP must prove)
i.c GENERALLY
1.c Probative vs. Prejudicial (FRE §403)ʹ    cc c %cc#Ú c
$ Ú$ c cÚÚÚ c Ú c  cc cÚc Ú c
 ccunfairc  Ú "cÚ"c  c#  ccÚ$
2.c Character ʹ $ c c -c ÚÚÚccpropensitycc   cc
c   cÚc Úc$cc c(Propensity or Conformity)
ii.c REASONS FOR CHARACTER EVIDENCE
1.c ELEMENT OF CHARGE/CLAIM/DEFENSE ʹ cFRE §405(b)
2.c CIRCUMSTANTIAL͟ Character evidence ʹ c c c c c  c
Úc   c#ÚcÚc   cc ÚÚ cc c Ú c Úc
a.c PROHIBITED BY FRE §404(a); (SUBJECT TO EXCEPTIONS)
3.c EXAMPLES ʹ  ÚÚcÚc c $Ú c Ú c$ %c ?c c Ú  c
 c c   c c c Ú%c#  c  Ú  cc c c  c
c   c ÚcÚ Úcc Ú cc c c c   c
# c ÚÚc !  %c c cÚ$ cc c Ú 
4.c EXAMPLE ʹ  cmay not be firstcc ccc c   -c
Ú$Ú c ÚÚ ccÚcÚ$Ú cÚ%cc#c c c
$$Ú c c  cÚ$
5.c WHY? ʹ 
((.c).c?Ã(·c
?/()c).9
a.c Weighs too much with JURY ʹ c ccoverpersuadec $c c
c   c c#Úc c c   c  c(UNFAIR TO DEF.)

c
c
iii.c THE STATUTE - FRE §404(a) ʹ Ú  cc cperson͛s character traits CANNOTc
 c cc c c c c  cÚc   c#Úc c   cc c
 Ú c ÚcEXCEPTIONS ʹcÚ$c   "cÚ$ c)ÚÚ$"cWitnesses
1.c FRE §405(a) 8c404(a) & ÚcMAY ONLY BE PROVED by reputation
or opinion evidence"cEXCEPTcÚ'Ú%cÚcspecific instancescÚc # c
ON CROSSc(OR IF CHARACTER IS AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME)
a.c NO REFERENCE TO SPECIFIC INSTANCES IS ALLOWED ON A
DEFENDANTS DIRECT EXAM OR PROSECUTOR͛S DIRECT EXAM
OF A REBUTTAL CHARACTER WITNESS (ONLY ON CROSSES)
b.c ONLY ON CROSS ʹ ?cc·

cÃ( c: ?Ã.c
($ cOR ʹ c  Ú c c   c%cÚÚc
 ÚÚc & $ c c Úc#Ú -cÚÚc Ú$%
2.c FRE §404(a)(3)cEVIDENCE TO IMPEACH A WITNESS ʹc(c+c '  c
c c  $Ú Úcc c Ú,cUSUALLY ADMISSIBLE)
a.c FOR BOTH SIDES IN BOTH CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES
3.c FRE §404(b) ʹ Ú  ccother crimes, wrongs, or actsc%c c cÚc
$ÚÚ cby prosecutioncc c #cÚ"cc cintent,
motive, knowledge, opportunity, preparation, plan or identity, etc.
4.c FRE §412 (RAPE SHIELD STATUTE) ʹ PROHIBITS evidence of pastc & c
  Úcc ÚÚÚcc c &cÚ$ cÚÚ$cFOR BOTH
CRIMINAL/CIVIL CASES
5.c FRE §413/414 ʹcÚ  ccÚc & c   Ú c$  Úc
c
((/.cÚcÚ$Ú c & c   Ú c$  Úc Ú
6.c FRE §415 ʹc( c()(.ccc#  c c Ú$cc $  cc c Ú c
 cc Ú$c c c %c$$Ú c cÚÚc c  cc
 & c   ccÚ c$  Ú"c Ú  c c c %c$$Ú c
 c  cc & c   ccÚ c$  Úc(c((/.
iv.c CRIMINAL DEFENDANT (SUMMARY)
1.c FRE §404(a)(1) - %c Ú  cc   -c   cmust first be
introduced by DEFENSE, EXCEPTcÚc  c#  c c   c c
 ! c cVICTIM͛S CHARACTERc(FRE §(a)(2))
2.c Offering Evidence of Character Trait ʹ ?c ?c? c??
cc
 Úc c  c Ú  c c (
c·


3.c PROSECUTION CAN ʹ (  c Ú  cc $ c   c Úc c


Ú c c c# c   cÚc Ú$Úc cthat trait
4.c IF DEFENDANT TAKES STAND ʹ  c Úcc !c cÚc   "c
(c? c·c??
cc Úcc c c Ú 
v.c REQUIREMENT THAT CHARACTER TRAIT IS ͞PERTINENT͟
1.c FRE 404(a)(1)-(2) ʹ Ú  cc c͞pertinentc   c Ú,
2.c SO ʹ Ú  c c c   cÚc   c c ?c c $Ú cc
  c  Úc c  cc c0Ú cÚ$

c
c
vi.c CRIME VICTIM (FRE 404(a)(2)) (Defense can always introduce PERTINENT)
 c PROSECUTOR CAN NOT INTRODUCE c0cÚ  cc   ccÚÚ$c
2.c EXCEPTION ʹ (1) HOMICIDE PROSECUTION ʹ (c  c c Ú  c
 c cÚÚ$c# c c(2)cFIRST AGGRESSOR"c c c c
Ú  c Ú  cc c(3) victim͛s peaceable character
a.c WHY? ʹ )ÚÚ$cÚcc Ú cc c c   -c Ú$
3.c ONLY GENERAL CHARACTER EVIDENCE ʹ %c
 Ú?ÚÚ
a.c NO SPECIFIC INSTANCES ʹ ? c cÚ$ c cÚ cc363 
b.c EXCEPT ʹ  ÚÚcÚ  c c cÚ  c%c   cc
#c c   -c cc cÚÚ$cc c   c Ú$
vii.c FRE 405(b) - CASES WHERE CHAR. EVIDENCE IS USED FOR ELEMENT OF CRIME
1.c IMPORTANT ʹ CAN INTRODUCE SPECIFIC INSTANCES ON DIRECT
2.c ENTRAPMENT DEFENSEʹ  Úc c#c c   c# c
+ Ú ,cc$$ÚÚc cÚ$ c Ú%cÚc $ 
3.c DEFAMATION ʹ 
·c(cc c c Ú  c cc   
4.c NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT ʹ c Ú  ccÚ c Ú c   c
c c c   -c $ c# c  Ú 
5.c GUN POSSESSION BY A FELON ʹ  Úc ccÚc c $ cc cÚ$
6.c EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASES
viii.c PROVING REPUTATION/OPINION TO PROVE CHARACTER (p. 288-293)
1.c MOST UNRELIABLE ʹ /c?c(( c?
c


2.c WITNESS KNOWLEDGE ʹ c c  #c Úc c Ú c   %c
  cc cÚ$ cc c c cÚ c
a.c AND BEFORE ʹ ·c  c  Úc   c  $ c Ú
3.c WITNESS NEED NOT BE PERSONALLY ACQUIANTED
4.c PROVING OPINION ʹ  c$c  cÚÚ c!#  cc
 Úc  cÚÚcÃÚ c#Ú c c  cÚc%c  
a.c FRE §104(b) ʹ   c  $Ú cÚcÃÚ c c c Ú  c
c   c   c %ccÚ c cÚÚc#c Ú Úc
ix.c CROSS EXAMINING CHARACTER WITNESSES
1.c TRADITIONALLY ʹ !c c  Úc#Ú c#  c c+ c  ,cc
  Úc ÚÚcÚ  cc cc c c c#$c c
 ÚÚ "c/ccÚ'Ú%c c c & ccÚc!#  c c
 c   -c  Ú
2.c ALSO USE ʹ +  c%c #  ,*c+  c%c  ,*c+ c%c!#,
3.c ASKING ABOUT SPECIFIC INSTANCES ʹ c/c
.) 
4.c JUDGES REQUIRE IN CAMERA SHOWING ʹ c  %Úc Úc  c
 $ÚÚc c' Úcc ccc c#Ú 
5.c MOST IMPORTANT ʹ MUST HAVE GOOD FAITH BASIS FOR QUESTION
a.c IF YOU DON͛T ʹ (
(.9
b.c RUMOR ʹ Úcc c %*c c
?
Ã( 9

c
c
d.c EVIDENCE OF HABIT (FRE §406) (DEFENSE CAN INTRODUCE!)
i.c GENERALLY ʹ Ú  cc c Úcc c ccc cÚ c Ú cc c
 Ú; Ú"c#  c  ccc  c   cc % #Ú  "c(c

.) cc c c c cc c cc Ú; Úcc c
 Ú c Úc# cÚc$Ú%c#Úc c ÚccÚ c Ú
1.c HABIT/ROUTINE PRACTICE ʹc͞Regular, consistent and specific͟
2.c WHY IS HABIT ADMISSIBLE WHEN CHARACTER ISN͛T?
a.c /   c Úc Ú c c Ú c  ÚcÚc specificc
 Ú"c  cÚcÚc%c  c c c
.
cÚccÚ Ú  "cc
Úc cgreater probative valuecÚcÚc cc c Ú c
 Úc c  c Ú  cc$ c 
.c ÚÚ 
ii.c THREE CRITERIA COURTS USE TO DETERMINE HABIT
1.c More specific the behaviorc8c  c  cÚ-c c· Ú
a.c Example ʹcÚ -c  %cc c Ú c cÚcc Ú"c
c c Ú -c Ú cc # %c!Úc c c Ú c Ú c
Ú  Úcc # %c !Úc c $ c cc#!cIS a HABIT
2.c Regularity (Most important) ʹ Ú  c c$  %c # %cc
$c # %c# c Úc  cis habitc+ Ú %,cÚc
3.c Automatic/Unreflective ʹ  c$cÚ Ú  c Úc  cc c
 cÚ!Úc c 'ÚÚc ?cÚccc
a.c Example ʹ Úc%ccÚ c# c Úc  
iii.c PROVING HABIT (USE ONLY OPINION EVIDENCE , NOT REPUTATION)
1.c WITNESSES ʹ  Ú%ÚccÚc ÚÚcÚ  cc 
2.c Must be a large enough sample ʹ c c c  cc  Ú
3.c Must establish UNIFORMITY OF RESPONSE
iv.c ELEMENTS OF THE FOUNDATION
1.c  c#Ú cÚc $Ú Ú cwith the person or business
2.c  c#Ú -c $Ú Ú Ú%c c &Ú cc csubstantial period
3.c  c#Ú c Ú  c c ccÚ c·c c Ú"c c ÚÚc
  Ú c  "c 
4.c  c#Ú c c  c c ccÚ c cÚc$Ú%c#Úc
 c ÚccÚ c Ú ccMULTIPLE OCCASIONS
e.c FRE 404(b) - OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS OR ACTS (RULE OF INCLUSION)
i.c GENERALLY ʹ USE 104(b) standard ʹ Judge acts as screen, then jury decides)
1.c MOST FREQUENTLY APPEALED OF ALL EVIDENTIARY RULINGS
2.c MOST FREQUENT GROUNDS FOR REVERSAL OF CRIM CONVICTIONS
3.c MOST COMMONLY OFFERED AND USEDʹ / c
??

4.c REVERSE 404(b) EVIDENCE ʹ Offered by Defendantc# c$Ú c


%c cÚ c %c#c c cÚ c %"c  c ?c·c  "c
# c c   cc cÚ$
5.c REQUIREMENT OF LOGICAL RELEVANCY ʹ cc c $ c cÚ$

c
c
ii.c 404(b) PRIOR CONVICTIONS
1.c MOST CERTAIN WAY ʹ $ÚÚc Ú  cc? )((?
2.c ALSO CAN USE ʹ  Ú c  Ú Ú"c  c   c 
3.c NO CONVICTION ʹ 
?(? c c(..c9c
iii.c 404(b) ANALYSIS - PROSECUTION
1.c FIRST ʹ  cÚc' Ú%c c+? cÚ$ "c#cc ,<
a.c OR IS IT INEXTRICABLY INTERTWINED? - (c  c  "c
  c # %c c c#$ = c   cÚcc
Ú  c c+ c#,c   cÚcÚc cc c 
1 c THEN 8c( Ú%c cnon-charactercÚ c c  Ú c(404(b) statute)c
c Ú "c( "c:#  "c   Ú"c "c  cc
Ú ! cc Ú *c(Opponent argue that it is FRE §404(a))c
 c ALSO - MODUS OPPERENDI 8cc
Ú c YOU CAN ARGUE THAT M O. Úc %cFRE §404(a)c
Ú  "c c·c
 cÃ(..c? (c
2 c THIRD ʹ  Ú cc cMATERIAL ISSUEc(identify which material issue)c
3 c FOURTH ʹcc(cFRE §104(b)  ÚÚ c
 %c   cÚc ÚÚ c
c Judge must find ʹ (( c)( c &Úc c# c #c
c   c c cÚ c# cÚc  c %c   c
Ú c IT THEN GOES TO THE JURYc
4 c LAST ʹ c·cFRE §403 TEST (SEE 9 FACTORS BELOW)c
iv.c OTHER FORMALITIES IN INTRODUCING FRE 404(b) EVIDENCE
1.c NOTICE ʹ  Ú"c? c
c?c"c$cÚ c

? /.c Ú cÚ cc %c Ú  cÚcÚ  ccÚ  c
 cFRE 404(b)
2.c JURY INSTRUCTIONS ʹ LIMITING INSTRUCTION ʹ %cÚcÚ$ cc c
Ú$ÚÚc cc#Úc c404(b)c Ú  c c c $Ú
v.c 9 FACTORS TO USE TO DETERMINE IF §404(b) PASSES §403 TEST
1.c EXTENT TO WHICH POINT TO PROVE IS DISPUTED
a.c (c Ú cÚ  "c c Ú  cÚc$ c Ú! %cc c & 
2.c ADEQUACY OF PROOF OF MISCONDUCT
a.c ÚÚ<c?c c$c  c$cc<
3.c PROBATIVE FORCE OF THE EVIDENCE
4.c PROPONENT͛S NEED FOR THE EVIDENCE ʹ  ccÚcÚ<
5.c AVAILABILITY OF LESS PREJUDICIAL PROOF
6.c INFLAMMATORY/PREJUDICIAL EFFECT
7.c SIMILARITY TO CHARGED CRIME
8.c EFFECTIVENESS OF LIMITING INSTRUCTIONS
a.c   c Ú! Ú cc%cÚc>c$ c  cc & Ú
9.c EXTENT TO WHICH PRIOR ACT EVIDENCE PROLONGS PROCEEDINGS

c
c
f.c PERMISSIBLE REASONS TO USE FRE 404(b) EVIDENCE (STEP 2 OF ANALYSIS)
i.c MOTIVE ʹ c %c c $ "cc.c?c
?)c(  
1.c FINANCIAL PRESSURES ʹ $ ;; $ cÚ c8c Ú  c $Ú cc
 c+%c  ,cc   -cÚ Ú c c "c   
2.c PERSONAL ANIMOSITY ʹ  cÚ c8c Ú  ccÚc   c
 ÚcÚÚ$c $Ú cc#c$Ú cc %c c%Ú 
3.c DRUG HABITS ʹ  $Ú cc#c$Ú cc %"c 
4.c SEXUAL DESIRE ʹ :Ú  Úc  c8c Ú  c $Ú cc#c
  c c$ & c ÚÚc#Úc%c%c  c
!Ú  ÚcÚ$cc#c$Ú cc!Ú  Ú
5.c FEAR OF PROSECUTION
ii.c OPPORTUNITY
1.c c#c   c# cÚcgeographical locationcc cÚ$ c c c
Ú$ c cÚ$ c# c$$Ú ccc#c c   chad ACCESS
to some crucial place or instrumentality
2.c ALSO CAN ADMIT EVIDENCE OF ʹ :#  "c $Ú Ú Ú%"c  Ú Ú%cc
& Ú c   %cc$$Úc cÚ$ c(Narrower than Char. Evid)
iii.c INTENT ʹ c/c ( c(c( cc/?
c
(?
cc(
1.c If Defendant is disputing intent ʹ  %ÚcÚc# c c Ú "cc$Ú ! c
c "cc# c+ %c !Ú,
2.c MORE LIKELY TO BE ADMITTED ʹ (c  cÚ Úc $ Ú Ú
3.c PREPARATION, PLAN ʹ c c c$   cc cÚ cc
a.c MUST SHOW PLAN AS A WHOLE ʹ cÚ ÚÚ  c 
iv.c KNOWLEDGE
1.c Possessing Stolen Property, Using Counterfeit money,
2.c Drugs ʹ Ú  c $Ú c c   c Ú %c  c$ Ú   c
ÚcÚc!cc c Ú$c c c Ú cc!#c c# c  Úc#
3.c Pornography ʹ Ú  ccÚ ccc   -c$ c
$Ú c ccc   -c!#  cc cÚc   c

g.c CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INDICATING GUILTY MIND


i.c COURTS GENERALLY ADMIT EVIDENCE OF BEHAVIOR ʹ Ú Ú Úc
Ú ccÚ cc   Úc c c# cÚ  cÚc# c 
ii.c EXAMPLES ʹc Ú"c ÚÚc  "c   "c cc Ú  "c# Úc c$ !"c
%Úcc  Úc Ú  "c %Ú"c  %"cÚÚ"c Úc ÚÚ"c 
iii.c EVIDENCE INDICATING GUILT ʹ Insufficient Alone ʹc?ccc? )((?
iv.c FLIGHT ANALYSIS ʹ NEED ALL FOUR TO ADMIT FLIGHT EVIDENCE
1.c Ú c c  ÚcÚ Ú  c c+ Ú,<
2.c Ú c c ÚcÚ Ú  cÚ ccÚ <
3.c à c cÚ ccÚ cc cÚ$ c  <
4.c à c cÚ ccÚ c cc cÚ   cc  cÚ 

c
c
h.c OTHER ACCIDENTS OR CLAIMS
i.c GENERAL RULE ʹ Ú  ccÚc Ú cc$Ú cÚc ?c((/.cc
 c  Ú  ccÚ%c  Ú  cÚc c Ú cÚc c #Ú
1.c BUT SUCH EVIDENCE IS ADMITTED TO PROVE NEGLIGENCE CLAIM
a.c &Ú  cc ÚÚ"c   cc c ÚÚ"c
ÚÚ Ú%c c c ÚÚc$Úc  c c Ú "c·c
? ((? c.. c(c  Úc  c: ?Ã.cc c
 ÚÚc  cÚc   
b.c ACCIDENTS MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR ʹ 
/.9
c.c ACCIDENTS AFTER EVENT IN SUIT CAN BE ADMITTED!
d.c EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE OF OTHER ACCIDENTS ADMISSIBLE
i.c c c $ Ú$Ú c  ccÚ$  Ú%
e.c COUNTEREVIDENCE ʹ ?cÚ cc   "c(? "cc
:#  cc/ (.. c((.
c 


i.c SUBSEQUENT REMEDIAL MEASURES (FRE §407) RULE OF EXCLUSION


i.c GENERALLY ʹ POLICY EXCLUSIONS
1.c FRE §407 ʹ Ã "cafter an injury or harm allegedly caused by an
event"c$  c  c ! c "cIF TAKEN PREVIOUSLY"c# c  c
$ c cÚ %cc $cLESS LIKELY TO OCCUR"c Ú  cc c
 ' c$  cIS NOT ADMISSIBLE c c(1)c .( "cc
(2)c   c "c(3)c c  cÚc c -c Ú"cc(4)c c c
c c# ÚccÚÚ
2.c cÚc c  cc 'Ú c c & Úcc Ú  cc ' c
$  c# c  cc ?·
c
?"cc cPROVING
OWNERSHIP, CONTROL, or FEASIBILITY of precautionary measures"cÚc
  "cc(· 
3.c EXAMPLE ʹ Ú  c c c   c$ c  Úc c c  c#  c
 ÚÚc c Ú cÚ Ú c ?c c(cÚc c  c #Úc
c c c c   c# c  Ú cÚc$ Ú ÚÚc c  c c
 cÚ$ cc c Ú 
ii.c REASONS TO EXCLUDE ʹ (͞POLICY EXCLUSIONS͟)
1.c  c c c c %c$ c  Úc  c c Ú c$ %ccÚ Ú  c
  Ú  cc   c? c $Ú ccÚ$  ÚÚ c c  c  c
 c c$ c  "c  c c %c  !Úc  Úc$ %c c $ % c c
Ú c   cc  %c c  c  c 'Ú 
2.c  cÚc ' c  Úc  cc#c  Ú  "c  cÚc cc
SOCIAL POLICYcc   c  c  c$ Ú cc$ ! cc
  Úcc   c c  %cc 
3.c UNFAIR ʹ cÚc  ccÚ %c Ú c 

c
c
iii.c EXAMPLES OF REMEDIAL MEASURES
1.c   cÚc Ú"cÚ Úcc Ú c Ú "c Ãc# Ú"c
 $ cc  c ÚÚ"c ÚÚcc "c  cÚc
 ÚÚ cc  Úcc  cc "c  c ÚÚ Ú cc
Ú$Ú cc $ % "c  c( 
(? cc ! c $ Ú c$  
2.c NOT INCLUDED ʹ 0  cÚ Ú Ú"c "c 
iv.c REMEDIAL MEASURES JUDICIAL EXCEPTIONS (ALLOWED)
1.c Remedial measures bycTHIRD PARTIES
a.c Ú  cc  cc c %cc c #Úc#c$ ! c  Úc
Úc %c $ÚÚ c(IT APPLIES TO NON-PARTIES OF LAWSUIT)
2.c SOME COURTS ONLY COVER VOLUNTARY MEASURES UNDER FRE §407
a.c  $  cc  %c Ú%c$   c$  c  c
not EXCLUDEDc   c %c cc   c 0$Ú  c
Ú %c Ú c  Úc c
c36?c !cc  
3.c SOME COURTS HOLD THAT ʹ
$ Ú c$  c
c((/.cÚc
 %c#  c ! c  cÚ %cc  c   c c!#  cc c
Ú %c  cc Ú$c c% c c$
v.c REMEDIAL MEASURES STATUTORILY ALLOWED
1.c THESE ARE STILL SUBJECT TO 403 (Unfairly Prejudicial)
2.c OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL ʹ  c   c cc $Ú cc
Ú$  Ú%c c  c cÚ %
a.c Rationale ʹ $  c# -cÚ&c# c# -c Ú
3.c FEASIBILITY OF PREVENTATIVE MEASURES
a.c c c c   -c Ú$c c  c# cc  c
 c Úc c# c Ú c
b.c Technology ʹ $c  c c  c/?
c( 
 
4.c ͞IF CONTROVERTED͟ (IF DENIED) ʹ (.(? <
a.c IF PARTY ADMITS TO FEASIBILITY ʹ &  c $ Ú c$  
i.c ALSO ʹ (c#Ú  cc c Ú  c c ÚÚ Ú%
5.c IMPEACHMENT
a.c ALLOWED IF ʹ ÃÚ c Ú c c &Ú  cc c Ú c
 ;  "c ÚÚ c c c c# c c  c cÚc c "cc
   Ú; c c   Ú c Úcc Ú c$  c c
   %cBUT IT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ADOPTED!
b.c ALSO ʹ (c   c#Ú c#c & c cÚÚc c c
 c# c  "c c$ %c cÚ$  c%c Ú  c c c
 c c# Úc  cc cÚ$Úc $cc c ; 
c.c OR ʹ (c c$   c Ú$c c %c c c  %c
Úc$ "c cc$ %c  %c $Úc Ú  cc
# Úc '  %cÚ c%c c$   cc$ 

c
c
6.c OTHER RELEVANT PURPOSES
a.c TO REBUT CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE DEFENSE ʹ Ú  cc
0 Ú cÚcc# Úc c   cc!Úc  c
$ÚÚ cc c Ú$c c  c ÚÚc#  cc
Úc c# ÚcÚc#  cc

j.c SETTLEMENTS (FRE §408) RULE OF EXCLUSION


i.c GENERALLY ʹ APPLIES TO CIVIL CASES
1.c (c c  c  cc  "c ÚÚ c  c  c$c Úc Úc
  $ c c c  Úc $c cÚ cc Ú Ú Ú%Ú c 
2.c WHY? RELEVANCY ʹ  %ccÚ Ú  cÚ c$ %c c%Úcc  c@@
3.c ONLY EXCLUDES ʹ  c$ cÚc c  $cc$$Ú c c
(c.(c(Applies to oral or written claims before suit is filed)
a.c DISPUTED AS TO VALIDITY OR AMOUNT - (c c c
$cc cc %c c= Admissible
4.c CANT INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF OWN SETTLEMENT OFFER
a.c /c(cÃ?.c( 
c·c??  c   cÚc
  $ c "c  c# c 'Ú c Úc  %c c
#Ú  c  c   c Ú' Ú%Úc  %
5.c IF EMPLOYER OFFERS EMPLOYEE JOB BACK (in wrongful termination or
employment discrimination) 8c(c cc c# cc c $ % cc
Ú$Ú  c c Ú$c8cIT͛S INADMISSIBLE
a.c IF Settle wasn͛t part of deal ʹ  $ÚÚ cc#c c Ú
6.c EVIDENCE OF SETTLEMENTS WITH THIRD PARTIES IS EXCLUDED
a.c EXAMPLE ʹ Úc c  cc c Ú "c  c  c#Úc
 *cÚc ?c( 
?c·c)( cc c
  $ c#Úc  cc c  -c Ú Ú Ú%ccÚ
b.c SIMILARLY ʹ   c cÚ  c Ú  c cÚc  c
#Úc  c Ú cÚ  cÚc $ c Ú c c Ú  cc
 cÚ Ú Ú%ccÚ-c Ú$c  Úc 
ii.c ADMISSIBLE FOR LIMITED PURPOSES
1.c GENERALLY ʹ FRE §408 DOES NOT require exclusioncc cc
  $ c#  c  cc c?·
c cÚc Ú Ú Ú%cc
$  "cc cÚc c#Ú -cÚ cc  Ú "c  Úc c
 Úcc  c %"c  cÚc c ccc cÚ$Ú c
Ú Ú Úcc Ú
2.c BIAS OR PREJUDICE OF WITNESS INVOLVED IN SETTLEMENT
a.c (c#Ú c c  c Ú$c#Úc c %"c %c$Úc Ú%c
   %cc c %cccÚ  Ú Ú"
b.c ?
c c#Ú c#cÚ cc  c$Úc c c Ú$%c
 Úc c %c#c  c c  $ 

c
c
3.c REBUT CLAIM OF UNDUE DELAY
4.c OBSTRUCTING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
5.c CIVIL COMPROMISE OF CRIMINAL CHARGES
a.c  %c  c#c #cÚÚ c$$Ú cc  Úc$Úc
Ú$Ú c  "cc c %c cÚcÚc  cc #c
Ú ÚÚ  cc  cc$  c  c c c
6.c OTHER PURPOSES
7.c BREACH OF AGREEMENT
8.c IMPEACHMENT
k.c PAYMENT OF MEDICAL EXPENSES (FRE §409)
i.c Medical Expenses ʹ FRE §409c &  c Ú  cc cc %cc  c
 %$ cc$ Ú "cÚ "ccÚ$Ú c &  c Ú c%c cÚ %"c
# c c Ú  cÚc  cc c Ú Ú Ú%
ii.c GOOD SAMARITAN ʹ (c c Ú c cc %c c$ Ú c &  cc c
 Ú c %cÚ"c c cÚc &  c$c Úc cc c Ú Ú Ú%
iii.c CAN BE ADMITTED TO PROVE ʹ &Ú  ccÚ %"c$ÚÚ Úcc $  "cc
 c &Ú  cc c $ %  $ % c ÚÚ
1.c ALSO ʹ Ú  cc &  c $ÚÚcc Ú Ú Ú%c c c $Ú

l.c PLEA BARGAINS (FRE §410)


i.c WITHDRAWN GUILTY PLEAS ʹ NOT ADMISSIBLE
ii.c NOLO CONTENDRE PLEAS ʹ NOT ADMISSIBLE
1.c RATIONALE ʹ   cÚcc $ÚÚcÚ "cc  c
( cc
 c c  "c c#ÚcÚc "c   c# c  c
  cÚc c ÚÚc   cÚc %c Ú "c c   c# cc
c Ú cccÚ   cc $ÚÚccÚ 
2.c CAN BE ADMITTED TO IMPEACH WITNESS
3.c OR PROVE ͞PRIOR CRIMES͟ UNDER FRE§404(b)
4.c OR TO ESTABLISH PRIOR CONVICTION IF IT IS AN ELEMENT (§405(b))
iii.c PLEA BARGAINING STATEMENTS
1.c TO QUALIFY FOR FRE §410(4) Exclusion ʹ c.( cc.c
(((? "c  cÚc#Ú c c c $ÚcÚc c c  c
  c  %c  c  "c#Úc c   
a.c WILL NOT APPLY ʹ (c c &  c c c ÚÚcc
 c   c c+ÚcÚc ?c c Ú Ú,cc c cÚc
cÚ   cÚc c c %c c(or gives g warnings)
b.c PROSECUTOR NEED NOT BE PRESENT ʹ (c c Ú; c.?-cc
ÚÚÚ  cc? ( c c Ú Úc#Úc   
c.c PRINCIPLES OF APPARENT AUTHORITY APPLY! ʹ cÚc
 cÚ c   cÚ$ Úc c.?c c Ú%c
c Ú  c c "c cFRE §410 #Ú c Ú! %c  %

c
c
iv.c WHEN PLEA NEGOTIATION STATEMENTS ARE ADMISSIBLE
1.c IF DEFENDANT OFFERS ʹ c c  ÚÚc  $ cÚcÚc "c
 Úc cÚ  c  c cÚc ccc cÚcÚc
Ú  c &
2.c FOR PERJURY PROSECUTIONS ʹ (c   c# c c 
v.c NOT ADMISSIBLE FOR PURPOSES OF IMPEACHMENT!!
m.c LIABILITY INSURANCE

V.c PRIVILEGES
a.c GENERALLY ʹ 6 things to know about privilege
i.c Who holds the privilege
ii.c Who can assert the privilege
iii.c What is the evidence covered by the privilege
iv.c What will WAIVE the privilege
v.c What will TERMINATE the privilege
vi.c What are the EXCEPTIONS to the privilege
b.c FRE §501
c.c FRE §502
d.c

c
c
VI.c AUTHENTICATION
a.c GENERALLY (FRE §901) RULE OF INCLUSION
Ú c $ ccc( Ú% ÚÚ%c$c c  c  c c &ÚÚc c c
$Ú cc  c#cc c %c
ii.c STANDARD ʹ Ú  cÚÚ ccc cÚ Úc cÚcÚc# c c
 c Ú$cÚcÚc(FRE §104(b) STANDARD)
iii.c JURY ULTIMATELY DECIDES AUTHENTICITY AND SIGNIFICANCE
Ú c PURPOSE ʹ  cc Ú  c cÚc   Ú  c
 c OPPONENT ʹc c
 c? 

??c?c· (( c
Ú c CONDITIONAL AUTHENTICITY (LINKING UP)ʹcÚ  cÚc $Ú "c ÚÚ c
c c  c Ú$% Ú  c
 c EXAMPLE ʹc.  c  %c#Ú c%c cÚc $Ú "cÚ c
 c c c   cc cc c c' ÚÚ c  #ÚÚc
& c#Ú c  c c  c#c#Ú c Ú%c cc  ÚÚ%cc
c If Expert fails to testify/authenticate = )( c(c
(: 9c
 c PRETRIAL AUTHENTICATIONc
Ú c DISCOVERY ʹ
' cc $ÚÚ"c ÚÚ"cÚ  Ú "c  c
 c YOU CAN HAVE PARTY SWEAR UNDER OATH AS TO AUTHENTICITYc
ÚÚ c PRETRIAL CONFERENCES ʹ  ÚÚ%c c cc   c Úc   c
ÚÚÚ c SUBPEONAS/OTHER DISCOVERY ORDERS ʹc( $c  cÚc  cÚc
 $ cc c  Ú  cc
Ú c STIPULATIONS TO AUTHENTICITY ʹc? Ú c c cc c cÚ c
c.c LAYING A FOUNDATION (FRE §901(a))
i.c TRADITIONAL STEPS
1.c · Úc c &ÚÚc$ ! ccÚ ÚÚ Úc%c cc  
2.c  Ú Úc c &ÚÚc%c ctestimony of a witness
3.c Offering the exhibit in evidence
4.c  $ÚÚc   c cc & $Ú cÚÚ%cc 
5.c $ÚÚcc c  cÚc  c# 
6.c ? ÚÚc c Úcc c
7.c !Úc $ÚÚcc  c c &ÚÚc   cc c %
a.c Passed around (if photo),
c/ cÃ( cÚc#ÚÚ

d.c TESTIMONY OF PERSON WITH KNOWLEDGE (FRE 901(b)(1))


i.c FRE 901(b)(1) ʹ c$  c$ %c c  Ú  c%c Ú$%cc cwitness with
knowledgec cÚcÚc# cÚc Ú$ cc c
ii.c SAME CONDITION ʹ Witness Should state that the item is in the SAME
CONDITIONc cÚc# c c cÚ$ cc c  cÚÚcÚ cc c ÚÚ Ú
iii.c SHOWING OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY APPLIES FOR MANY ITEMS ʹ Ú  ÚcÚ $c
 c  cÚ c %c &   Ú  "c !ÚcÚc ÚÚÚ c
$ ccÚ ÚÚ Ú"cc Ú! %cc  cÚc ÚÚ*c

c
c
iv.c FOUNDATION
1.c Witness says when they took custody and from whom
2.c The precautions they took to preserve the item
3.c The item was not changed, substituted or tampered with
a.c
  c Ú Ú%c cc $ Úc
b.c
  c    cc $ Úc  c 'Ú
4.c WHEN they relinquished custody, AND TO WHOM
5.c SOMETIMES YOU NEED MULTIPLE WITNESSES
6.c BREAK IN CHAIN = & Úcc Ú  c c$c c# Ú
v.c SAME CONDITION ʹ ÃÚ c c  c c cÚ $cÚcÚc cc
? ((? c cÚc# c c cÚ$ cc c  cÚÚcÚ cc c ÚÚ Ú
e.c HANDWRITING (FRE §901(b)(2)-(3))
i.c LAYPERSON (FRE 901(b)(2))-  $Ú %c$ $  $ %  $ % #! cc
 c Ú! %cc  cÚÚ c $Ú Ú Ú%c#Úc -c  #ÚÚ c
1.c SUFFICIENT IF WITNESS SAW PERSON WRITE IT
2.c JURY DECIDES ʹ (c c c ccÚ c  Ú cÚÚ
ii.c TRIER/EXPERT (FRE §901(b)(3)) ʹ HANDWRITING EXPERTS (FRE §104(b))
1.c SAMPLES TAKEN ʹ  &c "c Úc  "c Ú"c 
f.c DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS
i.c FRE §901(b)(4) ʹ c#ÚÚc$ %c c  Ú  c%cÚc    "c "c
  "cÚ  c  "cc c ÚÚc   ÚÚ
ii.c CONTENTS ʹ ?c c#ÚÚc  cc ÚÚc  Ú cc!#cc 
iii.c REPLY DOCTRINE ʹ #c c#ÚÚcc c  Ú  c c$Úc$c c
 ÚÚc c%c c#Úc cÚc
.(cc c  Ú c$$Ú Úc
1.c MUST SHOW THAT FIRST LETTER WAS SENT/RECEIVED
iv.c VOICE IDENTIFICATION (FRE §901(b)(5)) ʹ /  cc  & 
v.c TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS (FRE §901(b)(6))
1.c INCOMING CALLS ʹ )Ú cÚ ÚÚ Ú"c 
2.c OUTGOING CALLS ʹ #Úc c c# c$ cc c c  c c
$ c Ú c%c c$ %"c  c c c c # Úc
Ú ÚÚ c $  c c c c#c# c
g.c PUBLIC RECORDS/ANCIENT DOCUMENTS
i.c PUBLIC RECORDS/REPORTS (FRE §901(b)(7)) ʹ #Úc c %c  c$c
 ÚcÚ c#  cÚ $cc c  c  c$ %c! 
ii.c ANCIENT DOCUMENTS (FRE §901(b)(8)) ʹ c $ cc  c$ %c c
 Ú  c%c Ú  c cÚcÚc(1)  c16c% c c# c  cccccccccc
(2) ÚcÚcÚÚcÚc    c  c(3)c cÚc c  c#  c c# c
& cÚcc c  Úc
1.c AGE OF DOCUMENT ʹ ÃÚ cc $ cÚc( (( 9c c c
#Ú  c#Úc!#  "c & c#Ú "c c & $Ú Ú"c 

c
c
h.c PROCESS OR SYSTEM (FRE §901(b)(9))
i.c FRE §901(b)(9)ʹ Ú  c ÚÚc c cc% $c cc  c c
  c  c#Úc c c cc% $c  c c   c  
ii.c TAPE RECORDINGS
1.c  Ú c# cÚc c "c  c# c' ÚÚ cc   cÚ"c  c Ú c
c  %"c  cc  c#  c$ cc c  Ú
2.c Participant ʹ  c Ú%c c c  Úc %"c Ú %c  c   %c
  c c  Úc(901(b)(1) Witness with knowledge)
3.c INAUDIBILITY ʹ  %c ccÃ(·c ?c((/(.( 
a.c Material Alterations = .
iii.c PHOTOGRAPHS
1.c SILENT WITNESS DOCTRINE ʹ  c ! c%c Ú  c
 $  cccc %c c $ 
2.c SHOW PROCESS BY WHICH PHOTO WAS TAKEN/ACCURATE RESULT
3.c VIDEOTAPES ʹ  $ c Úc 'Ú $ c c 
iv.c X-RAYS
1.c #Úcc  Ú Ú%c  c   Ú Ú%cc 'Ú$ c
2.c  ÚÚ Úcc c  
3.c  c  c cÚc  Úcc c 'Ú$ 
4.c  cÚ$ c c0
 c# c ! 
5.c  c).? c
?
*c
 .(
 cc0
 
6.c   c  c %cc ()cÚccÚ
7.c ( ÚÚ Úcc c &ÚÚc c c0
 c( c(?
v.c E-MAILS ʹ $ Ú$ c cc c
cc  c 0$ Ú c  c(c  
1.c USE FRE §901(b)(4) WHEN YOU CAN (DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS)
2.c OR USE REPLY DOCTRINE
3.c STILL SUBJECT TO HEARSAY DOCTRINE!!
vi.c POLLS/SURVEYS
1.c Ú  cc c c# c  %c Ú c#Úc    cc c
  %Úc 
2.c c    Ú c $ c# c  c  c' Ú
3.c  c' Úc#  c "cÚ$ c  c0 Ú
4.c  cÚ Ú #c  c#  c #
5.c (c# c   %c   c  c  "c  c# c  %c  %;
6.c ? ÚÚ%cc c c# c '  %c  c%c! Úc c
 Úcc %c    c$c c ÚÚ Ú
i.c DIAGRAMS
i.c PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE FOR AUTHENTICATION
ii.c SHOW OPPOSING COUNSEL THEN ASK TO APPROACH WITNESS
iii.c LAY FOUNDATION
iv.c ͞FAIR AND ACCURATE REPRESENTATION?͟

c
c
VII.c BEST EVIDENCE RULE (FRE §1001)
a.c GENERALLY
i.c MAINLY USED ʹ CONTENTS of a writing, recording, or Photograph
ii.c FRE §1002 REQUIRES THAT THE ORIGINAL BE PRODUCED
1.c UNLESS UNAVAILABLE ʹ  c/00
c Ú; csecondary evidence
iii.c WRITINGS/RECORDINGS ʹ ( Ú %c cc $  c  Ú %c  %c
$ $Ú c c   c#Ú c  c! c   cÚ  Úc  #Ú
iv.c PHOTOGRAPHS ʹ Ú c"c0
 "cÚ $"cÚ   "cÚ 
v.c ORIGINAL ʹ ?c c#ÚÚ"c  Úccc cÚ cÚc ÚÚ Ú
1.c DOESN͛T MEAN ʹ Úc#ÚÚ  Úc c# c$
2.c PHOTOS ʹ  c·c ()c  c  cÚc  $
3.c COMPUTER OUTPUT ʹ %cc cÚc  c%cÚc  c#c
c  c   %c c  c cc c$ 
b.c EXCEPTIONS (FRE §1004) ʹ USE SECONDARY EVIDENCE
Ú c FRE §1004(1) ʹ ORIGINAL LOST/DESTROYED ʹ  .c
??  c
? c
ii.c FRE §1004(2) ʹ ORIGINAL NOT OBTAINABLE ʹ %c %c  Ú  c  ÚÚ c c
c  *c cÚcÚc c Úc%"c  
iii.c FRE §1004(3) ʹ ORIGINAL IN POSSESSION OF OPPONENT ʹ  c c %c c
 cccÚ "c%c c Úcc #Ú "c c c c# c c
 ccc c c Ú"c  c c %c  cc  c cÚÚ
iv.c FRE 1004(4) ʹ COLLATERAL MATTERS ʹ ÃÚÚ  Ú cÚcc
  %c  cc c ÚcÚ
v.c PUBLIC RECORDS (FRE §1005) ʹ c $ c Ú; cc c  ccÚ c
 c  %c  ccÚ c(often a copy of the original)
vi.c SUMMARIES (FRE §1006) ʹ ) $Úc#ÚÚ"c  Úcc "c
#Úc c c Ú  %c & $Ú cÚc"c$ %c c   cÚc c$c
c c "c$$ %cc  Ú c
1.c ORIGINALS/DUPLICATES ʹ  c c$ c  Ú  cc & $Ú Úcc
%Ú"cc"c%c c Ú c c   cÚ$  
vii.c TESTIMONY OR WRITTEN ADMISSION OF PARTY (FRE §1007)
1.c (c c %c  Úc#$cÚ$ Úc c c cc c#ÚÚ"c
  Úcc cÚccc cÚ  cÚ c Ú$%c
c cÚÚ "c cÚÚ c#ÚÚc c?c ?c. 

c
c
VIII.c IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES
a.c SHOWING BIAS ʹ CAN USE SPEC INSTANCES ON CROSS AND EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE!
i.c GENERALLY ʹ Ú "c Ú"cc $Úcc c#Ú c c$Úc  c
 Úc Ú$%"c Úc $cc c$ cc c   cc cÚÚcc c
 %cc c?·
c c c$ Úc(ALWAYS NON-COLLATERAL)
1.c CAN RELATE TO EITHER THE PARTIES OR ISSUES IN LITIGATION
2.c ALSOc  c?()c?
c( 
 (FINANCIAL, CAREER, SOCIAL, etc.)
ii.c PRIOR STATEMENTS (EXPRESSING BIAS)
1.c EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY ʹ   $ cc c#Ú cc#cÚ cÚc
 c+  cc$Ú ,c & Úcin FRE §803(3) c
2.c PROPONENT ʹ  cÚcc cÚc(
"cc c c c %c
 ccÚcc cÚc  $ cc
?c  c$ ! cÚc !c Ú! c
 c  %c Úc c Ú c
(c?c·(c(
a.c EVIDENCE TO REBUT BIAS IS ALSO ADMISSIBLE
iii.c OTHER TYPES OF BIAS
1.c If witness was COACHED by trial counsel"cc c cÚ   c%c
  Úc#Úcc Úc c Ú$%cc c#Ú  
2.c If witness is subject cÚÚÚ$"c $  $ "ccÚÚ ccÚ$Ú c
Ú Ú Ú%c  c$c  %cc Ú%Úc c  Úc# %
3.c ÃÚ c c ! cc  cc ! cÚ cÚ  Úc c   c c
c$c cÚc Úc#Úc c  "cc c   c c
 %"cc c c   c%ccc  cc c %"c  c cc
 c#Ú -c  c  %cc  %ccÚ  c  c $Ú %
4.c Employment relationshipc # c#Ú c  c c %
5.c WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAMc8c $ c#Ú  c$ %c cÚ c
%c cÚ Ú c Úc %c  c  ÚÚc$c
b.c SHOWING PROBLEMS IN CAPACITY
i.c GENERALLY ʹ Ú$Úcc  cÚc %cc$  c  ÚÚ c ccc c
Ú! Ú c c c#Ú c   %c  Ú c  c  c  c c
 %cc$   ccÚc Ú$%c cÚ  c $ c$cÚÚ 
1.c I.E. ʹ ÃÚ c Ú -c c  %Úcc c  %Úc  %
2.c OR ʹ    c Ú -c %c$   c# c# cÚc
ii.c HOW TO QUESTION
1.c Cross-examination is appropriate as is EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE
2.c Line of Questioning may be blocked ʹ Úc c  !Úc %c !c c

? /.c Úc  c c' Úc  c( 
()/
( 
3.c CAN DEMONSTRATE LACK OF CAPACITY ʹ #Úc' Ú 
a.c Can ask General Questions to test memory
4.c PARTY CAN BRING OUT ON DIRECT ʹ ͞BITING THE BULLET͟
iii.c DRUGS AND ALCOHOL
1.c  $%c  c  Úc c c   c%c   c
2.c  %c cÚccÚ&Ú Úc c cÚ$ ccÚÚ 
3.c  c c' ÚcÚc %c  c c cÚ   c#Ú c Ú%Ú
iv.c MENTAL ILLNESS ʹ EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE ALLOWED
1.c CROSS EXAM ʹ  %c$ %c#c$ Ú c  c  c$ Ú c $ 
a.c REDIRECT ʹ ÃÚc 0 Ú  c#Úc#Ú  c  Ú%
i.c THIS IS CALLED ͞REHABILITATING THE WITNESS͟

c
c
c.c EXPERT WITNESSES
i.c Expert Testimony as to Witnesses Capacity to tell Truth ʹ ? c.
ii.c Court routinely DENY requests that witness is examined by expert
iii.c Sometimes ʹ c c 'Ú c & $c%c+ $  Ú,c $c c c ÚÚcc
 Úc  Úc Ú cc Ú  cc  Úc  Úc Ú$   
1.c COURTS CAN͛T COMPEL NONPARTY WITNESSES TO BE EXAMINED
d.c SHOWING TRUTHFULNESS/UNTRUTHFULNESS (FRE §608) (FRE §404(a)(3))
i.c GENERALLY - SPECIFIC INSTANCES ARE ALWAYS COLLATERAL (NO EXTRINSIC!)
1.c FRE §608(a) ʹ c#Ú c$ %c c(·c%cc c cÚc%c
ÚÚÚc 
·."c%c Ú  c? . cc   cc
  c(USING REPUTATION OR OPINION EVIDENCE)
2.c EVIDENCE OF TRUTHFULNESS ʹ  c %c c $Ú c  c c
   cc#Ú -ctruthfulness has been attacked cFRE §608(a)(2)
3.c Ú  c cc  Úcc#  c c  $ cc c#Ú c
 c "cbut whether the WITNESS IS A TRUTHFUL PERSON OR NOT
4.c EVIDENCE OF PRIOR MISCONDUCT ʹ ccFRE §403 TEST
a.c (c cÚcÚ$Ú c8c
 c(·c? (
5.c FRE §608(b) - CROSS EXAMINATION OF PRINCIPAL WITNESS ʹ CAN
REFER TO SPECIFIC INSTANCES*cBUT No extrinsic evidence!
ii.c FOUNDATION FOR REPUTATION
1.c    c#Ú c$c c ' Ú c#Úc#  c cÚÚ c#Ú c
Ú "c#!"cc cc c/
c?c? ( 
2.c ÃÚ c cc Ú "c#!"ccc cÚc c$$Ú%c8cc
c: ?Ãc c#Ú  c ÚccÚ #cc c$$Ú%
a.c c.:( c?ccÃc?.c(c( (( 
iii.c FOUNDATION FOR OPINION
1.c c  c!#c cc$ c Ú ccÚ$ cc$ c  "c
Ú cc Ú c Ú"c c?
c c?( (?
iv.c CROSS EXAMINATION OF ADVERSE CHARACTER WITNESS
1.c  c#Ú  c!#  cc  $ c%c Úc Ú$Ú ÚcÚc# c
 c#Ú c!#cc#Úc c Úc  $ cÚc
2.c CAN REFERENCE SPECIFIC CONDUCT BY PRINCIPAL WITNESS ʹ c
Ú$ c c   c   c#Ú 
a.c Example ʹ %c %c ccÚc = Ú c%c c c
3.c CAN ALSO ASK SPEC. INSTANCES INVOLVING ADVERSE CHAR WITNESS
4.c EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE IS NOT ALLOWED ʹ ? . c(? ( 9
a.c WHY? ʹ  - cÚ$ Úc   c#Ú ccc#Ú 9
v.c NONCONVICTION MISCONDUCT
1.c EXAMPLES ʹ  !Úc  c  $ cc Ú Ú"c  Ú Ú"cc
 $ c$cc c &c *c  c Ú$%"c Ú"c
 ÚÚcc   Úc "cÚ %"cc %c c Ú c 
2.c BEHAVIOR THAT IS ͞IMPROPER͟ or ͞IMMORAL͟ ʹ  %cc   Ú %c
 c $Ú c cÚc c c Úcc c
·. cc#Ú 
vi.c LIMITS AND SAFEGUARDS
1.c QUESTIONS MUST HAVE REASONABLE BASIS FOR INQUIRY
a.c IF QUESTION IS IN DOUBT ʹ ( c
(/
c ÚÚ
2.c MOTION IN LIMINE ʹ c ' c c ÚÚcc  cc #c
' ÚÚcc Ú c 

c
c
e.c PRIOR ACTS & CONVICTIONS (FRE §609) (NON-COLLATERAL)
i.c GENERALLY ʹ CAN USE EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE IF WITNESS DENIES
1.c FRE §609(a)(1) ʹ If a witness OTHER than a criminal defendant has
been convicted of a FELONY"c Ú  cc cÚÚc·..c/c
(c cÚc Ú c  c#  c c#Ú -c ÚÚ Ú%cÚc
substantially outweighedc%c cÚ!cc Úc  Ú cc   "c
 c Ú  ccÚÚcc  c c c $Ú cÚc cprobative
value outweighs the prejudicial effect of the accused
2.c FRE §609(a)(2) ʹ (c %c#Ú c c cÚ cc cÚ$ cÚ Úc
DISHONESTY, or FALSE STATEMENTS"c#  c c $ cc cÚ$ c
 'Ú c $ÚÚcc c cc Ú %  c  $ cc
c  %"c Ú  cc cconviction can be admittedc
3.c TIME LIMIT ʹ FRE §609(b) ʹ (c cÚÚcc c  c$c
Ú $ c  cc cÚÚc#Ú  c c  c!c
  c6c% cc$ c  c cÚ "c Ú  cc cÚÚcÚc
$ÚÚ c? . cÚcÚc  c cFRE §403 TEST
a.c ADVANCE NOTICE TO OPPOSING COUNSEL IS REQUIRED
ii.c HEIGHTENED PROTECTION FOR CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS (§609(a)(1))
1.c PRIOR CONVICTIONS OF DEFENDANT ʹ  $ÚÚ c %cÚc Ú c
  c# Úc  ÚÚ c  c
?(? cc
?)
a.c FAVORS EXCLUSION ʹ    c c Ú c  c$c
 Ú %c# Úc c  ÚÚ c   c
i.c THIS IS REVERSE §403 ANALYSIS
ii.c §403 ANALYSIS TEST ʹ  Ú c  c$c c
/ (.. c?Ã(·c%c  ÚÚ c  
iii.c IF PROBATIVE = PREJUDICIAL VALUE = EXCLUSION
iii.c GORDON FACTORS FOR PROBATIVE VALUE (ë   •
1.c NATURE OF PRIOR CRIME
a.c (cÚc cÚ$ c c  c   %cc %Ú Ú%<
b.c ?cÚcÚc$ cc cÚ cÚ$ c#Úcc  Úcc %<
c.c Ú$ cc $ Ú Úc  c$ c Ú c  c
2.c RECENCY/REMOTENESS
a.c  c c6c% c c c  %c c & 
b.c (cÚÚcÚcc6c% c "ccÚcÚ c c  c  c  c
c c cÚ$ c$$Ú c # c c c c  cÚc
 "cÚc$ %cÚc c cÚc cc& Ú
3.c SIMILARITY TO CHARGED CRIME
a.c  c  cÚc  $  cc cÚcÚ$ c c c   c
# cÚ cc  c c cÚ$ c  "c c$ c
Ú! %c c  Ú cc c   
b.c Ú c c c $Ú ccÚ $Ú "c  c(FRE §404(b))
4.c EXTENT/NATURE OF CRIMINAL RECORD
a.c  c$ cÚ$ c c  cc c  "c c$ c  ÚÚ
5.c IMPORTANCE OF DEFENDANT͛S TESTIMONY
a.c (c c  c  $Ú c cÚcÚcÚ cc c%cc c c
   -c Ú$%"c c$Úc &  c cÚcÚÚcc
 c c   c#Ú c Ú%c c#-cÚc  c $ÚcÚ

c
c
6.c IMPORTANCE OF CREDIBILITY ISSUES
a.c  c$ cÚ$  cc c ÚÚ Ú%cc c#Ú  c  c c
  c  c  cÚcc c$ cc cÚ "c c$ c
Ú! %c cc#Ú c #c cÚcÚÚcc c $Ú
7.c OTHER FACTORS
a.c à c cÚÚc  c c cccÚ %<c?c cÚ %c <c
/   c ÚccÚ %cÚ c Ú %
8.c  •    c c cc$ %cÚ'Ú cÚc c
  %Úc c  c !c c $ cc  c c   %c  "c
c cc  Ú cc ccÚ Ú cc Ú c# cÚ'Ú%c
 % c c $ c  c  cc cÚÚcÚc   %"c  c cÚcÚc
 cJUDGE͛S DISCRETIONcc$ ! c c  $Ú Ú
a.c Prosecutor should have ͞some details͟ about convictions to
present to the Judge for this determination
b.c Encouraged ʹ cc$ ! c  c  cÚ'ÚÚ 
iv.c LOOKING TO UNDERLYING FACTS
1.c GENERALLY ʹ cÚ$ ccc Ú %cc  c  $ 
2.c Question is ʹ #  c cÚ$ c ÚÚ cFRE §609(a)(2) %# %"c
   c  %Úc c#c c cÚ$ cÚ  c Ú%
a.c Example ʹ  c %Úc c# #c$c -c Ú
3.c USUALLY APPLIES IF ʹ  c cc c c cc Ú %cc
  c  $ cbecause it was integralcc c cÚÚc cÚ$
4.c READY PROOF REQUIREMENT ʹ Ú$ c$c c  cc c+ Ú %c
 $Ú ,c cc#  cÚcÚc cFRE §609(a)(2)   
a.c PREVENTS A ͞MINI-TRIAL͟ WITHIN A TRIAL
b.c USE INDICTMENTS/CASE JACKET OF PROSECUTOR, ETC.
v.c CRIMES OF DISHONESTY OR FALSE STATEMENT
1.c GENERALLY ʹ ?(.. c((/.c .c& Úc  Ú 
2.c APPLIES TO BOTH FELONIES AND MM
3.c FELONY OF DISHONESTY = ?(.. c((/.
4.c USUALLY ʹ   %"c  "c $ ;; $ "c 
5.c USUALLY NOT ʹ   "c  "c & c   "c  %"c c  
6.c BIGGEST DEBATABLE CRIME ʹ ·c %c &  
vi.c EXCEPTIONS TO CRIME OF DISHONESTY AUTOMATIC ADMISSIBILITY
1.c 10 YEAR LIMIT ʹ
  cc#  c ccc %
a.c BEGINNING POINT ʹ Ú$ ccÚÚccÚ$ cc  c$c
Ú$Ú$ c÷(·)
c?c.

b.c END POINT ʹ   ccÚ Ú$ "c  cÚ c Ú"cc  c
#Ú c ÚÚ 
c.c OVERCOME 10 YEAR LIMIT ʹ %cÚ Úc#Ú cÚ cc
 c %ccÚ c $c c Úc  cc c  c cc
Ú c c c Ú c  c Ú %c# Úc c
  ÚÚ cÚ$ 
2.c ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF REHABILITATION ʹ  -c
3.c JUVENILE ADJUDICATION ʹ  
.. c( ((/.
4.c PARDONS/ANNULMENTS BASED ON INNOCENCE ʹ  -c

c
c
f.c PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS (FRE §613)
Ú c PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT MUST BE INCONSISTENT WITH TESTIMONYc
 c NEED NOT SHOW PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT TO WITNESSc
1 c OPPOSING COUNSEL CAN REQUEST TO SEE ITc
2 c IF WITNESS ACKNOWLEDGES PRIOR STATEMENT ʹ ?c
( (9c
c ÃÚ c# c %c c %c Ú c %c$ Úc Ú  cÚc Úc
ÚÚ"c  c c%cc & Úc#%c$ ! c $c !c c
ÚÚ c USE OF EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE ʹ DEPENDScc cc  $ cc
 c    cc#  c  $ cÚc?..
.cc ? 0?..
.c
ÚÚÚ c CASE SPECIFICc8c -c %c Ú c   c c   cÚc  -cc
c c   c   cc Úc c ccc  c  cÃÚ c
Ú c IF SEVERAL Prior inconsistent Statementsc8c$Úc Ú c c c c
  "c#Úc# c #cc cc#Ú cto put on a character
witnesscc cÚ$ %c#Ú cc#cÚ$ %c#Ú -c  c
 c WARNING NEEDEDccFRE §613(b)c(UNLESS IT FALLS UNDER §801(d)(2))c
 c SO ʹ %c c#Ú c c %c ÚÚ c c$ Ú"cc  c c
ÚÚ Ú Ú"c  c %c Ú c$ Úc Ú  c
Ú c HEARSAY EXCEPTION ʹ (cc%Úcc c??c  $ c# c c
g.c IMPEACHING TACTICS USING PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS
i.c COMMIT, CREDIT, CONFRONT
 c COMMIT8c#Ú cc %c  $ c &  %c cÚ ccÚc
  $ c+ c c ÚÚ c ==,c+ cYOU SAIDc = ,c
1 c  c cÚ$ccÚ$c c  $ c(that is your testimony today?)c
2 c CREDIT8cÚcÚ-c cÚcÚ$ c%c  c# c%c  c
c  c ÚÚ c  c cA c  $ Bc
 c  ÚÚcÚ<c c? <c%c c c<c(ÚÚ cÚ<c
 c If not under Oathc8c !c ctime of statementc  c Ú <c
Ú c You knew your police report was important, right<c
3 c CONFRONT8c c#Ú c# c %c ÚÚ ccÚc Úc  $ c
c If they deny itc8c  $Ú c   0   cc
 $Ú cÚc%c cÚcÚc c &ÚÚc Ú  c
 c HAVE THEM READ HIGHLITED PORTION OF PRIOR STATEMENTcc
Ú c ?
c
c(c?
c·9c  c %c+ Ú c(c c cÚ<c
ii.c NEVER USE EXTRINSIC UNLESS YOU HAVE TO
1.c
c·c(? cc?.c(
2.c
c·c?((? ()(c?cÃ( c?c·c
a.c #Úc#ÚcÚcc $99
iii.c NEGATIVE IMPEACHMENT ʹ (Frowned on in FL, good to use in Federal)
 c  c  c %Úc$ ÚcÚcc c%c Ú -c %cÚc%cÚc
  $ "cand it is an important enough fact that you should havec
$ c  $ c  c
1 c OCCURS A LOTc8c.?c cc %c -c#Ú c #c  %c  Ú c

c
c
IX.c TESTIMONY BY WITNESSES
a.c LAY WITNESS TESTIMONY (FRE §701)
i.c GENERALLY (PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE REQUIREMENT) ʹ (c c#Ú c
 Ú%ÚcÚcc c & "c Ú$%c c Úc"c ?c?( (? 
1.c OPINIONS/INFERENCES ARE LIMITED TO
a.c rationally basedcc c  Úcc c#Ú cc
b.c helpful to a clear understanding of the witness͛ testimonycc
 c  $Ú Úcc c cÚcÚ "c  c
c.c NOT based on scientific, technical or otherc Ú Ú; c
!#  c#ÚÚc c ccFRE §702
ii.c EXAMPLE ʹ ÃÚ cÚc Úc cc Ú%c c   c# c͞Drunk͟
1.c ÚcÚc  cc Úc#c  Úcc c   
2.c Úc#Ú c c c %c#Úc c Ú$%c   c$c %c$ $ c
 c  cc#c$  c cc !c# c %c  c !
3.c   $ÚÚcÚc$  cÚc !c  cc 'Ú c Ú Ú; c
!#  cc!Ú cc %cÚ ÚÚ Ú c!# 
iii.c LAY WITNESSES MAKE ͞SHORTHAND CONCLUSIONS͟
1.c ? c# c Úc  cc c cc %c  c Ú%Úc
2.c (-c %c c c cc cc Úc Ú$%
a.c  ccCc c1cCc c2cCc c3c>c  c Ú
iv.c MUST HELP THE JURY ʹ   c  c  c  c  $ c -c c c %"c
   c cÚc# c c %cÚc cc  $Ú c c cÚ cc 
b.c OBJECTIONS TO LAY WITNESS TESTIMONY
i.c THIS OBJECTION WILL BE ͞SPECULATION͟
1.c ($ c. %cÃÚ cÚÚ
2.c . !cc!#  c
c56

c.c EXPERT WITNESSES (FRE §702)


i.c GENERALLY ʹ FRE §104(a) Standard ʹ Preponderance of the Evidence
1.c If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledgec#Ú c Úc c
Ú cc cc   c c Ú  ccc  $Ú c c cÚcÚ "c c
#Ú cQUALIFIED AS AN EXPERT"cby knowledge, skill, experience,
training, or education, MAY testify Úc c$ccAN OPINIONc(D
a.c  c Ú$%cÚc  c SUFFICIENT facts or data (STEP 4)
b.c  c Ú$%cÚc c c reliable principles and methods
c.c  c#Ú c capplied the principles and methods RELIABLY
to the FACTS OF THE CASE
2.c SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE -cÚ   Úcc cc cc c %c
 c  cc %c ccc    c "c/ ÚÚ"c  
a.c This is the ͞Subject Matter͟ Inquiry (STEP 1 BELOW)
ii.c 6 STEPS FOR DOING EXPERT WITNESS ANALYSIS ON EXAM
1.c (c c  c
?
cc c &  & c Ú$%<c%c <
2.c à c  c c' ÚÚ Úcc c & <c(§702 ʹ knowledge/skill, etc.)
3.c  ÚÚ Úcc c$   %c c c & c <c(Daubert/702)
4.c à cÚc c/(cc c & -cÚÚ<c(FRE §703)
5.c à cÚc c$c c c & c#Ú -c Ú$%cÚcÚcc ! <
6.c APPLY THE FRE §403 TEST ʹ & c Ú$%c#Ú c "c$Ú "c 

c
c
iii.c QUALIFICATIONS AS AN EXPERT (STEP 2)
1.c Generally - ÃÚ c c c' ÚÚ c c c & c%c!#  "c!Ú "c
& Ú  "c ÚÚcc  Ú
2.c Just because they are getting paid does not make them an expert
3.c QUESTIONS TO ASK
a.c ·  c %c  c ÚÚ cÚc ccc #c c c & <
b.c ·  c %c#Ú c %c!cc Ú <
c.c  $ cc %c ÚÚc<
d.c $cc ÚÚ  Úc  c÷
<
4.c IN SOME JURISDICTIONS ʹ  c %Úc Ú"c%c !c ccc
.( c $c c c & 
c  c"c cÚcÚ$ c# c !c ccc  c c#Ú c
c c+& cÚcAÚ B,c
4 c OPPOSING COUNSEL͛S OPTIONS (IF THEY CHOOSE TO OBJECT)c
c VOIR DIRE WITNESS ʹ Úc   cc %c
Ú c ('ÚÚ cÚc' ÚÚ Úcc & cc ÚÚ Ú%c
ÚÚ c #c %c c & cÚcc %c' ÚÚ c
iii.c  cclimiting as to what expert can testify to
 c THEN OBJECT TO QUALIFICATIONS ʹ  ! c%c $ 9c
Ú c %cc ccc Ú$Úc# c & c c Ú%cc
ÚÚ c OR OBJECT TO STATUS ͞AS EXPERT͟ (KEEP OFF STAND)c
c
iv.c QUALIFICATIONS OF METHODOLOGY ( Hearing) (STEP 3)
1.c  g   (FEDERAL TEST)
a.c FRE §104(a) Standard ʹ Preponderance of the Evidence
 c c$cÚ c͞Validity͟ or ͞Reliability͟cc c Ú  c
 c  c Ú  -cdegree of ͞FIT͟ with the facts/issuescÚc c  c
Ú c ·(c(c/(.. cc
c36c
.)  c(? c
c Risks/Dangersc c c Ú  c#Ú c c cÚ cc
$Ú c c %c(APPLY §403 TEST)c
1 c RELIABILITY (FRE §702 STANDARD) ʹ FACTORS USED DURING HEARINGc
c · c % Ú' c c c  c c ctested beforec
 c  Úc cinvolved controls and variablescc#c Ú Ú Ú%c
 c à  cÚc c c  ccpeer review and publicationc
c c  cÚ  c#ÚcÚc$   %c
c &Ú  cc   c Úc c  Úcc c Ú' c
 c   cc    cÚc cÚ ÚÚc$$Ú%c(FRYE TEST)c
2 c IN FLORIDA ʹ FRYE TEST (NO DAUBERT TEST)c
c .!c c#  c c Úc$   %ÚÚ c c c
ÚÚ  %c   c%c cÚ ÚÚc$$Ú%c$c#Úc
 c Úc$ c$c
 c Court hears testimony from expertscÚc cÚ c cc#  c
Úc Ú$   %c c c   %c   c
 c THIS DIFFERS FROM DAUBERT TEST ʹ    c & c  c
$ !Úc c  $Ú ÚcÚ cc c  c

c
c
v.c BASIS FOR EXPERT͛S OPINION (STEP 4)
1.c MAY BE BASED ON (SOURCES OF DATA)
a.c  c & -cÚ0  c!# 
b.c  c & -c  ÚccÚc#Ú  c  c c Ú  c
c cÚ cÚ 
c.c c· ?·(.c(? c ! cc c & 
2.c INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE (FRE §703) ʹ & c#Ú  c?( (? c$ %c
 c  cc Ú  c#ÚcÚc #Ú c( ((/.*c/c)( c
c cc c% c+reasonably relied upon by experts͟ Úc c Ú c
Ú cÚc$ÚcÚÚccÚ   cc c 
a.c Probative value of inadmissible evidence must substantially
outweigh prejudicial effect (REVERSE FRE §403 ANALYSIS)
3.c NEED NOT DISCLOSE FACTS FOR BASIS (FRE §705)
a.c BUT ʹ  c Úc c c ! Ú c Úc
?
b.c THIS INCLUDES INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE ʹ cÚcÚc
 c !cc ÚccÚÚc Úc
?"c c & c$c
Ú  c c Ú"c  cÚc c  %Úc cc  c c#  c
 c Úcc cÚÚc  c #Ú c( ((/.
4.c OBJECTION BY OPPOSING COUNSEL - + cÚcÚc c & c c
c ÚccÚ $ÚÚ c Ú  ,
a.c Opponent Úc %Úc c cÚcÚc c & cccc
ccc Ú  c cÚ-c $ÚÚ c·cc·
 
5.c BEST THING EXPERT CAN DO
a.c Ú c   "cÚ Ú "c Ú$  cc ÚÚ Ú%cc Ú! Ú
6.c HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION - c c$ c Úcc $ÚcÚc
% Ú "cc  -c  cc c c%c Ú  cÚc 
7.c OTHER WAYS TO HAVE OPINION EXCLUDED
a.c c c  cc$ ! c cÚÚc ÚcÚcÚ '  
b.c  c  cÚcc c% c   %c Ú cc%c & 
8.c DATA CAN BE EXCLUDED ʹ (cc   %c Ú cc%c & 
Ú c rgc
 c  $ cc c c  cÚÚ c  Ú cc..c
c
1 c & Ú  c  c & Ú c$c c & $Ú cc
Ú Ú Ú%c
c & c$cÚ cÚ$ Úc c c  cc c
& Ú  "c  c#c#cÚc cc c$  c
.)  c
vii.c FORM OF THE EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY (TWO TYPES) (STEP 5)
1.c General testimony regarding applicable scientific principle
c . c %c  %cÚcÚ ÚÚcÚÚ cc c c
2.c Testimony that takes principle and applies it to this case
c & c$ ! cÚc Úc?
c·c
 c
 c ·(c(c?/)(?. c·c?
c
((.c
ÚÚÚ c ULTIMATE ISSUE (FRE §704)c
 c & c?ÚÚÚ   cÚcc Ú  c   cÚc $  c c
 Ú$  cÚ c(which is to be decided by the jury)c
1 c Exception (FRE §704(b)) ʹ & cÚcÚ$Ú c  c ?c & c c
ÚÚcc c ÚÚcÚ cc c   -c$  c  c cÚc c
$ cc cÚ$ c  Ú "c
! "c  c

c
c
X.c HEARSAY
a.c GENERALLY
i.c Definition ʹ ?0?0c  $ c  cc c ccc c$  c  
1.c Repeating what someone said ʹ ·
c§c 
2.c Applies to Documents too ʹ  Ú%Úc c# c$  c#
ii.c EXAMPLE ʹ )Úc %c c+ Ú cÚ ccÚc$ c cÚ,
1.c IT IS HEARSAY IF ʹ   cc#c c Ú cÚ cc!Ú c)Úc
2.c NOT HEARSAY ʹ Úc  cc#c c)Úc# c  c c 
iii.c EXAMPLE ʹ c  c#Ú c%c)ÚccÚc$ "c+ Ú cÚ cc!Ú c$ c c
Ú,c# c c  %cÚc  cc c 
1.c NOT HEARSAY ʹ (c  cc c c)Úc! cÚcc#c$
iv.c FOUR DANGERS ʹ (1)c$ÚÚ%c(2)cÚ %c(3)c( c$ $%c
(4)cÚ   c  Úc..c/c
? c(c ?c·
c?
c
?
b.c CONFRONTATION CLAUSE (6th Amendment) (ONLY CRIMINAL CASES)
i.c CONFRONTATION CLAUSE (6th Amendment) ʹ cÚ$Ú c   c c c
Úcc c c#Úc c#Ú  c  ÚcÚ$
1.c INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE UNDER OATH
ii.c CRAWFORD DOCTRINE ʹ  Úc  cÚc ÚÚ cÚc c ! c ÚÚ c
cÚ c  c c c0 & $Ú c c c# c c Ú c 
1.c Deferred/Later Cross =  ÚÚ c Úc 
2.c Prior Cross = Satisfies (c ! cÚc  Ú  c cÚ cc# c0
& $Ú c c c  Ú cÚ$ 
c.c OUT OF COURT REQUIREMENT
i.c Out of court statementc8cÚc %c  $ c & c c$ c%c c#Ú c Úc
 cÚ c#Ú c Ú%Úc  c cÚ cc 
1.c  ÚÚc  c  $ c$c cÚ care O-O-C Statements
2.c   $ c$ cduring preliminary hearings, motion hearings, etc.c

c ?c?0?0c  $ 
d.c WHAT IS ͞A STATEMENT͟ (FRE §801(a)-(b))
i.c Statement ʹ c cc#Ú cASSERTIONccnonverbal conductc %c
  cc c "cÚcÚcÚcintendedc%c c c c cassertion
1.c CAN BE SHAKING HEAD ͞NO͟ OR NODDING HEAD ͞YES͟
2.c POINTING IN A CERTAIN DIRECTION #Úc# %cÚc <
3.c THUMBS UP cÚ c c Ú$ Ú c # 
4.c PLACING HAND TO HEAR  c%c  c <c !c9
5.c APPLIES TO SLANG/CODE WORDS AND ͞BUSINESS SPEAK͟
6.c CAN ALSO INCLUDE SILENCE (IF IT͛S AN ASSERTION!)
ii.c IF IT͛S AN INSTRUCTION ʹ ?c c
(? c8c?c ?c·
 
e.c OFFERED TO PROVE TRUTH OF MATTER ASSERTED
i.c GENERALLY - (c# c c c !cc c# c c   c Ú <c
1.c Is statement͛s relevancy based on whether the statement is true?
2.c If relevancy is based on whether it was said ʹ ?c·
 
ii.c EFFECT ON HEARER/READER (NOT HEARSAY)
1.c (c c  $ cÚc  cc#c c c Ú  cc c# ccc
Ú "c c  Úc!#  "c c c  Úc $Ú"cc   c
   %   %"cÚcÚc ?c·
 

c
c
2.c Example ʹ  c # cÚc ÚcÚc c c  c Ú c %c c cÚc
!c c c!!*cÚc # cÚ cc c Ú "c c#Ú c# cc c
  $ cc c c Ú c# c !
a.c RELEVANCY ʹ    cc#  c  $ c# c
b.c If Driver wants to put statement on (Contributory Negligence)
ʹ  c
 %cÚc c  $ c# c"c  cÚc
  $ c ccc? c·

c ?(cc !  

XI.c HEARSAY EXCLUSION - PRIOR STATEMENTS BY TESTIFYING WITNESS


a.c FRE §801(d)(1)(A) - A statement is NOT HEARSAY IF ʹ  c   cÚc Ú%Úc cÚ c
c Úcand IS subject to CROSS-EXAMINATIONc Úc c  $ "c  c
i.c The first statement isc(A) Inconsistent with Declarant͛s Testimony,  c
ii.c WAS UNDER OATH"c cc  %"c c cÚ "c Ú"c ÚÚ"c 
1.c YES TO BOTH ʹ Admissible for proving truth of matter asserted
2.c IF NO TO EITHER ʹ  $ÚÚ c %cc(· 
3.c REMEMBER ʹ  cÚc c  $ cÚc $ÚÚ ccÚccc
$  c   "cCAN ARGUE 401, 403, 404(a), ETC.
b.c REQUIREMENT OF PROCEEDING
i.c ? %c  $ cÚ c c c c cc c?
.c
?( c$ %c c
 Ú %cÚ  cÚc c#Ú -cÚ c Ú$%c Ú *cOral Statements
Affidavits filled out at police station/prosecutors office are not ͞proceedings͟
c.c NO REQUIREMENT OF CROSS-EXAM AVAILABILITY DURING FIRST STATEMENT
i.c c  0 %c Ú$%"cc c#c  $ cc ccc  c
$ÚÚ "c/c  $ c c c0 & $Ú c ?ÃcÚ 
d.c CONSISTENT STATEMENTS ʹ FRE §801(d)(1)(B)
i.c  $ÚÚ cÚcÚcÚc+offered to rebutcan express or implied charge againstc c
#Ú cc  c Ú ÚccÚ$ cÚ   cc$Ú ,*c
ii.c ABSOLUTE CONSISTENCY NOT REQUIREDc8c$c c+Ú c ,
iii.c RECENT FABRICATION, IMPROPER INFLUENCE OR MOTIVE ʹ   c  c c
# %c c0 & $Ú c$c  !cÃÚ c  c %c c ccc

Ú c  cÚ  c c c c#Ú c c cÚ c c 
1.c Improper Influence or Motive = ($ $ cc/(
2.c STATEMENT MUST BE MADE BEFORE CAUSE OF ALLEGED BIAS
iv.c CROSS-EXAM THAT ALLEGES PRIOR INCONSISTENT =  % c  c Ú Ú
v.c NO NEED THAT PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT BE MADE UNDER OATH
e.c METHODS OF INTRODUCING CONSISTENT STATEMENTS
i.c RE-DIRECT OF DECLARANT WITNESS
ii.c CALL ANOTHER WITNESS TO CORROBORATE CONSISTENT STATEMENT
f.c PRIOR IDENTIFICATIONS ʹ FRE §801(d)(1)(C) ʹ MUST IDENTIFY ͞PERSON͟
i.c c  $ ccidentification (not description)c$ cafter perceivingcÚ$cÚc
$ÚÚ "cÚc c   c ÚÚ c cÚ c  cÚc  Ú  cc0 & $
ii.c NO REQUIREMENT THAT IDENTIFICATION IS MADE UNDER OATH
1.c EXAMPLE ʹ )Ú"c c %cÚÚ$"cÚc# !Úc #c c c c %c
 c c %c# c cc:% c)Úc %cc "c#cÚc#Úc
Ú$"c c+ -c c , c c#Ú c c  cc  cÚc  $ c
c:% -cÚ "c  cc)Ú-c  $ c# cc$ c c? 

c
c
XII.c HEARSAY EXCLUSION - ADMISSION BY A PARTY OPPONENT (FRE §801(d)(2)(A)-(E))
a.c GENERALLY ʹ JUDGE USES 104(a) Standard
i.c c %-c#c# cc c$ %c coffered as evidence against him"c  c
c  c#  c# c cÚ $ÚÚ c  %cÚc Ú cc  c%c
$  c c c c %cÚc c Ú
ii.c %c  $ c$   c%c   c c c c  Úc c   c
ÚcÚ  c%c c  ÚÚc  cÚ 0  
iii.c RATIONALE ʹ  %c c ! c  c  c % & Úc  $ 
b.c PARTY͛S OWN STATEMENT; FRE §801(d)(2)(A)
i.c Pleadings ʹ  c c  c $ÚÚc %"c  cc $ÚÚ c %
ii.c Conduct as admission ʹ  $ÚÚ "c  cÚcÚ  c c  Ú
1.c Example ʹ cc   -c  $cc cÚÚ$-c %c# c
 c $ÚÚ c c c $ÚÚc%c   ccÚcÚ 
c.c ADOPTION OF ANOTHER͛S STATEMENT; FRE §801(d)(2)(B)
i.c GENERALLY ʹ Ú$  c$c cc c c
? /.c
? c# c
  c Ú c c  Úc(QUESTION FOR THE JURY ʹ FACT SENSITIVE)
ii.c Real and Knowing Test ʹ (c c %cÚc Ú$ cc  c  c  -c
  $ c  c c ÚcÚc$  %cimplied,  c cÚc#  "c !ÚcÚc
c..c(
 "c c %-c ccÚ  c ÚÚ c c
 Úc c cKNOWINGLY agreed #Úcc c c -c  $ 
iii.c SIGNING ANYTHING ʹ ÃÚ c$ c Úcc c $cc# c%- cÚÚ
iv.c SILENCE ʹ ? "c c %-cÚ  cÚc c  cc c c -c  $ c
#Ú "c c cÚ$  "cÚ Ú  c c c %c  c#Úc c  $ 
1.c EXAMPLE ʹ ÃÚ cc  c c  c# ccÚ "c"cÚcÚ Ú  "c %cc
Ã"c+cc c$ %cÚc c !, c-cÚ  cÚc c  ccÚc
  $ c#Ú c  %c c cc#c-c!#Úc  $ c#Úc
ÚcÚ Ú  -c  $ "c   cc# c  c Ú c #Ú
2.c CRIMINAL CASES ʹ Silence while in CUSTODY does not mean admission
3.c WRITINGS ʹ Ú  cÚc c  cc c#ÚÚc c$ c Ú
a.c EXAMPLE ʹ c  Ú c cÚ c$c c Ú"c ÚÚc  Úc
$c# cc ÚÚ c#! cc  c ?c  "cÚcÚ  c
#Ú c c  c c c Ú c $ÚÚccÚc 
d.c REPRESENTATIVE ADMISSION; FRE §801(d)(2)(C)-(D)
i.c GENERALLY ʹ  cÚc c %c Ú cc$ ! cc  c cc  c -c
$ÚÚ"c c $ÚÚc$ %c c $ÚÚ c  Úc c %c   c c
Ú; cÚcÚc$ c# %c(called representative or vicarious admission)
ii.c EXPLICIT AUTHORIZATION EXAMPLE ʹ  c$ %c Ú; c %c
$ % c#cÚcÚ  cÚc c Ú cc$ ! c c  $ cc c Ú
1.c A statement from an employee for an incident ʹcÚc((/.c  Úc
 "c   cÚc# c.((. c Ú;
iii.c VICARIOUS ADMISSIONS BY AGENT/EMPLOYEE ʹ c  $ c  c
$ÚÚ cÚc$ cduring the employment  c Úc cmatter within the
scope of employment (No Authority to speak is required)
1.c VICARIOUS EXAMPLE ʹ !c Ú c$ ! c c Ú c  $ cc
 c Ú "c  cÚc$ % c  c Ú; cÚ$cc$ ! c "c c
Ú -c  $ cÚc $ÚÚ c  Úc c$ % ccÚc  cc
 c$  c#ÚÚcÚ -c $ %$ c ÚÚc  c Ú 

c
c
e.c CO-CONSPIRATORS; FRE §801(d)(2)(E)
1.c GENERALLY ʹ c  $ c$ c%c c0Ú cÚc $ÚÚ c
 Úc c c$ $ cc csame conspiracy"c c c c
2.c STATEMENT is made during the COURSE OF THE CONSPIRACY, AND
3.c STATEMENT IS MADE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY
ii.c COURSE OF THE CONSPIRACY
1.c AFTER END OF CONSPIRACY ʹ   $ c$ c  c $ÚÚ c? . c
 Úc c   "cc c c$ $ cc cÚ %
a.c EXAMPLE ʹc(cÚ %cÚc! cc%c c  ccc  c/"c
%Úc/c %cc Ú c#Ú cc c $ÚÚ c  Úc
2.c CONSPIRATOR LEAVES
a.c (cc  c cÚ %"cc/c  ccÚ c#ÚcÚ$"c
 c  $ c%c/c  cc  cc  c$ %cc c $Ú c
 Úc"cc  $ c%cc  c c c cÚ %c c
 c $ÚÚ c  Úc/c  c"cÚ c cÚ %cÚcÚ
3.c STATEMENTS BEFORE ʹ   $ c$ c%cÚ c/?
c c
 c %c Úc
c((/.c  Úc c  c Ú cà c c
Ú c c   c cÚ %c  cÚcÚ Ú"c cÚc cc
  c?c c  Ú c  $ c%cÚc #c0Ú "c  c
 c c c c  Úc c # %c Ú c0Ú 
iii.c IN FURTHERANCE
1.c GENERALLY ʹ c  $ c c c $Ú c  Úc c0Ú c
? . cÚcÚc# c$ cc c cc  Úc cÚ %
2.c WEAKLY APPLIED ʹc Úc%c c0Ú "c  Ú cc c
 "c  $ c%c c   c $Úc cÚ$ ccÚc c0
Ú cÚ ccÚ$ "c  c c '  %c $Ú c c c
& Ú"c  cc %c  cc Ú %c+Úc   ,
iv.c CONDITIONAL RELEVANCY OF CONSPIRACY (USING §104(b))
1.c c cÚ c#  c c cc c0Ú c
  $ c  c c ÚcÚ$  c   Úc c &Ú  c
c cÚ %c%c cPREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE
2.c USING STATEMENT TO PROVE CONSPIRACY ʹ   $ c$ %c c
Ú  "cc c c c? . ccc cÚ %
a.c MUST BE INDEPENDENT PROOF OF CONSPIRACY
3.c SCOPE OF CONSPIRACY MUST BE DETERMINED ʹ c cÚc c
  $ c# c+Úc   ,cc cÚ %-c Ú

XIII.c HEARSAY EXCEPTION ʹ PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSION (FRE §803(1))


a.c GENERALLY ʹ  %cc Ú; c c & Úcc+  c  cÚ$ Ú,c  c
c c   cÚcc &Ú "cbut it MUST DESCRIBE OR EXPLAIN EVENT
i.c EXCEPTION APPLIES TO STATEMENT ʹ  ÚÚcc & ÚÚc c  cc
 ÚÚcmade while the Declarant WAS PERCEIVING the event or condition,
or immediately thereafter (VERY short period of time after)
ii.c EXAMPLE ʹ ?c c c c c%cÚc cÚ c Ú Ú"c  c %c+(c c
Ú c! cc c "c - c %c , c c  $ c# c Ú! %c c
$ÚÚ cc c c c c# c  Úc 
b.c TIMING ʹ Must be an IMMEDIATE present sense impression

c
c
XIV.c HEARSAY EXCEPTION ʹ EXCITED UTTERANCE (FRE §803(2))
a.c GENERALLY ʹ ( cc & ÚcÚc c c Ú cc  cÚ%cc Ú
b.c REQUIREMENTS ʹ NO TIME LIMIT
Ú c   $ cmust relate toc cstartling event or condition"c c
ÚÚ c  c  $ c$c  c c$ c÷(.c c   cwas still under the
stress or excitementc  c%c c  cc ÚÚc
 c DEPENDS ON CIRCUMSTANCES (SEE BELOW) -  c cÚc c
 %c "cc   Úc# c$ c   c$Ú c  c>c?:c
 c TIME FACTORc
Ú c  cÚ$ c c  c # c c  c  c c  $ cÚcÚ cc
 $ÚÚcÚc c   c# cÚ c c c  &Ú $ c  c
 c USUALLY STATEMENTS MADE WITHIN 30 MINUTES ARE ADMITTEDc
1 c IF OVER 30 MINUTES ʹ    cc ÚcÚ$  c
c EXCEPTIONSc
Ú c Úc & Úc$ %c c ÚÚ c  cÚc c c Ú ccÚ$ c c  "cÚc c
Ú$  cc cÚ c c c c cÚ c c Úc cÚ$ cc
 c   cc c# !Úcc$cÚ cc c$ c
c
XV.c HEARSAY EXCEPTION ʹ STATEMENTS OF EXISTING MEDICAL CONDITION
a.c GENERALLY
i.c (c  $ c%c   c.((. cc Úc$  c ÚÚc cÚc
 ÚÚ cÚc c8cit is being admitted for the truth of matter asserted
1.c I.E. ʹ  cÚc c %c# c Úc$c Ú
ii.c (c  $ cÚ$ Ú %cÚ Ú  c c   -c  cc$Ú "cÚc c
 c   -c  cc$Ú c  %c & Úc(  c+(c $c
 Ú,
1.c NOT HEARSAYc8c Úc cc c c cÚc# c Ú "cccc
b.c MENTAL CONDITION
i.c STATE OF MIND DIRECTLY IN ISSUE ʹ  c & ÚcÚc c c#  c c
   -c  cc$Ú cÚc Ú  %cÚcÚ
1.c MUST BE THE DECLARANT͛S PRESENTLY EXISTING STATE OF MIND
2.c EXAMPLE ʹ c ccc Ú  Úc c  ÚccÃ"c#cÚc-c#Ú c
Ã-c  $ ccc+(c -c Ú! c%c %$ ,c"cÚc  cc#c c
Ãc  cc Ú! cc %$ c8c c. c?c-c
(c(cc8c
 c c c & Ú
ii.c SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES ADMITTED ʹ (c  $ cc
 c$  c
  cÚ  c c    cc ÚcÚ$  "c c (
c  $ c
#Ú c$ %c c $Ú "cBUT WITH A LIMITING INSTRUCTION
1.c EXAMPLE ʹ +(c  c$%c  c   c -c c    , c c# c
  $ c#Ú c c $Ú c cÚc & Ú"cÚc  cc c c
 c   c  c c  c c cÚ$ cc c  $ *
a.c Jury will be instructed ʹ  cÚc$ %cc c c  $ c c
c c c  c# c c    ,
iii.c PROOF OF SUBSEQUENT EVENT ʹ & Úc  Ú c#  c   Úcc
  c$  c  c  Ú %c  cintent) Úc  c ?cc c$  c
  cÚ cÚc cÚ "c/c/c c$  c  cÚc(
 (.c
)( c c csubsequent event actually took place

c
c
1.c EXAMPLE ʹ ?c %c+(c cccc! c !, cÚc  $ cc
  cÚ c(c((/.cc#c c?c  %c '  %c
# cc! c !
iv.c A STATEMENT OF INTENT WITH RECITAL OF PAST ACTS ʹ Úc c  $ cÚc
$ Ú %c c & ÚccÚ cc c c c "c c c cÚc Úc cÚ c
 Ú c c$ c "c  c c#Ú cc  c c  $ cc c
&  "c  Ú %c# c   c &  cPAST MOTIVE
1.c EXAMPLE ʹ ?c %ccÃ"c+c c ! cc$ cÚ c$ %"cÚ$cÚc
c  cÚccÚ$ ,ccc# c  %c #cÚc c (
c
  $ "csince it is mainly a statement of intentc  cc#c c
 cÚ  c c8c Ú Úc c$ %c8c   %c!c 
XVI.c HEARSAY EXCEPTION ʹ STATEMENTS FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES (FRE §803(4))
a.c GENERALLY ʹ ( cc & ÚcÚc c c#Ú c c·? c c ÚÚ
b.c PHYSICAL CONDITION
i.c TO LAY PERSON ʹ ? %c c·  %c & ÚcÚcÚc  cc c   -c

 c Ú %c ÚÚcc%$$c %cÚc#Ú c  cc Ú
ii.c TO TREATING DOCTOR ʹ   $ c$ %c c c  c?
cc%$$
1.c MAY INCLUDE CAUSE OF CONDITION  ?c(c?c÷?-cc.9
a.c EXAMPLE ʹ    c %Úc c# cÚc%c c c#Ú c c
$ÚÚ "ccc#c  cc c %c c c c Ú
2.c STATEMENT TO DOCTOR FROM THIRD PARTYc8c c cÚc
& ÚcÚcÚc# c$ cc c c Ú c c $ 
3.c INCLUDES STATEMENTS TO NURSES ʹ  c $  c Ú "cÚ c
 "cc % c  cÚ  cÚc c c  c 

XVII.c HEARSAY EXCEPTION ʹ BUSINESS RECORDS (FRE §803(6))


a.c GENERALLY ʹ Ã   c  -c c  $cc  c cÃ
(( c $Ú cÚc Ú  c
c c c c  c$ Ú cÚc c#ÚÚc  %c "c c/Ú c  c
& Úc c  %cÚ
i.c WRITING MADE AT OR NEAR THE TIME OF THE EVENT
ii.c BY, OR FROM INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY, A PERSON WITH KNOWLEDGE
iii.c WRITING KEPT IN COURSE OF A REGULARLY CONDUCTED BUSINESS ACTIVITY
1.c TIP ʹ .??:c?
c( c?
c( )(()c
?
c8c  c  c
 c$ c%c cÚ c( c (((? c?c.(((? "c  ccÚc
 cÚc c cc c "c %c cc' Ú%ccÚc & Úc
   cÚ-cc  cc+
.
,cÚ c 
iv.c IT WAS THE BUSINESS͛ REGULAR PRACTICE TO MAKE THE RECORD
1.c ÚcÚc c Ú%ccÚc & Úc8c   c cÚ c# c c
$Ú  cc$ ! c   c c  cc Úc$ %
v.c ALL AS SHOWN BY THE TESTIMONY OF A QUALIFIED WITNESS
b.c BUSINESS IS OFTEN DEFINED BROADLY
i.c CAN INCLUDE ʹ 0Úc Ú; Ú"c  Ú cÚÚÚ"c 
ii.c OPPONENT MUST SHOW ʹ . !cc#Ú cÚc cÚ c 
1.c  c  c cÚ$  c Úc c   ÚccÚc
$ c  c Ú  ccc#%"c 

c
c
c.c EXAMPLES OF BUSINESS RECORDS
i.c Can be Acts, Events, Conditions, Opinions or DIAGNOSIS
ii.c c # Úc Ú -c  c$   c 
iii.c c Ú -c cÚc cÚ
iv.c cÚ -cÚÚ c#Úc c cÚ$ c# c$

XVIII.c PUBLIC RECORDS (FRE §803(8))


a.c EXAM TIP ʹ Ã   c c $ cÚc   c%c cGOVERNMENTAL BODY,  c cc
 cÚÚ Ú%c cÚc c c $Ú c c c$  ccpublic record
i.c IF IT͛S A CIVIL SUIT ʹ THESE COME IN; CRIMINAL = ONLY IF D WANTS IT IN
b.c GENERALLY ʹ  c% cc Úc  c  c $ÚÚ c cÚc & Ú
i.c AGENCY͛S OWN ACTIVITIES
1.c Example ʹ c c/(ccÚ ÚcÚcÚ % cc cÚ  c c
 %-c Ú  c  cc c c  %c  cÚc
ii.c MATTERS OBSERVED UNDER DUTY
1.c ?  Úcc c$ c( c·c.( c?c 
2.c ?ÚÚ c$c  c c c c?c
?
c·?c?/
)(? 
3.c CANNOT INTRODUCE IN CRIMINAL CASE ʹ ()(.cc? . 
iii.c INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS WITH FACTUAL FINDINGS
c.c SINCE YOU CANNOT INTRODUCE ʹ  c c c  Ú -c Ú$%
i.c DEFENDANT COULD INTRODUCE ʹ c -c cÚ  c%c Úc

XIX.c DOUBLE HEARSAY (FRE §805) (NEED MORE ON THIS!)


a.c GENERALLY ʹ ?ccc  $ c c $  c Úc ÚÚ c  $ "c
$ %c c $Ú "cc c c c  $ c c $ c c  %c Ú
i.c Example ʹ   c:Ú cÚccÚ cc   cc/c Ú % c Úc c
   "c  c   c c  c c Úc c c c/c c c
 Úc#Úc c#Ú c
1.c Prosecution wants to put on Margaret͛s statement to Sundance
2.c Prosecution argues EFFECT ON LISTENER ʹ (Non-Hearsay Use)
ii.c (c c  $ cÚc0  %c c c Úc  $ c ccÚc c
& Úcc c $Ú c   c c   cc c  $ cÚcc c
 cc c  $ "cc  c c c c %c#  c$

XX.c HEARSAY EXCEPTION ʹ PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED (FRE §803(5))


a.c GENERALLY ʹ (c c#Ú cc c  cCANNOT REMEMBER,  c  c &Úc c#ÚÚc
Ã
( c%c c#Ú c   Úc c c$  cc c' Ú"ccÃ
( c
  cc c  "c$ c·?
. c  c c  c c "cÃ(..c/c((/."cÚc
FOUR Requirements are Met
i.c WRITER HAD PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE ʹ  $  $c$c  cc$  c
c#Úc c   c#Ú c? c·c(
c· c: ?Ã.
1.c Example ʹ Ãc#Ú c #c cÚ % c(c c %c cÚ c c$ cc
 cÚcÚc cÚ %c# c!#c %ccÚc Ú c#c Ú c
 cÚ"cccÃ"c c$ $c(c ?c((/.c c c Ú cÚc
c  Ú  cc Ú%

c
c
2.c COMMON SCENARIO ʹ  Ú cÚ c#Ú c c Ú c c c c
  cc c Ú "c  cÚ  cÚcÚc c  $ c%c c#Ú  c
a.c cÚ "c cÚ c c%cÚ$ c cÃ-c  $ c$c
Úc "c   c cofficer does not have first handc
!#  cc c$  cÚc cÃÚ -c 
b.c   $ c c cÚ  cÚcÃc ÚÚ cc Úc$ cÚc
# chis memory was fresh"c  c cÚ c ÚÚ c c# c
 c# c c "cit was ACCURATE
ii.c MADE WHILE FRESH IN MEMORY ʹ +·?
. c
c·c) ,
iii.c IMPAIRED RECOLLECTION ʹ  cÚc#Ú c$ $%cc c  c
  c$c#c cIMPAIRED
1.c (c c c.
. c $ $ c c  "c c$c Ú%c$c$ $%c
  c c  c c $ c $Ú c(Refreshing Recollection)
2.c c c  cSOME impairment of his memory (NOT TOTAL LOSS)
iv.c ACCURATE WHEN WRITTEN ʹ  cÚc#Ú c c cÚ c$c Ú%c
 c c  cWAS ACCURATE # cÚc# c$ c(Adopted by witness)
1.c Úc#Ú c cc c c c#c$ c c 
a.c Example ʹ (cc$ c c  "cÚc$ %c c c%c c
ÃÚ "cÚcc & $ c cÃÚ c# c-c Ú "c  c c
 Ú%c c  c c  c# c$ "c c ! cÚc  c
 $Ú cÚcc c  
b.c Adopted IF ʹ ÃÚ c #c c $ "cÚ cÚ"c 
v.c ONLY PORTION THAT WITNESS COULDN͛T REMEMBER IS READ INTO RECORD
1.c  c Ú c$ c?c ?c$ cÚ
2.c  %c ÚcÚ c& $c cÚcÚc  c+ ccE624=,
b.c CONTRASTED WITH REFRESHING RECOLLECTION (FRE §612)
i.c Refreshing Recollection is usedc# c c#Ú c -c $ $ c$ Ú"c
cÚc%cÚ c $c c $ c cÚ "c %c#Ú c c   c%c c $ c
 cthen testify from their refreshed memoryc8cso it͛s NOT hearsay
1.c Can refresh recollection with ANYTHING
a.c  -c  cc c$ Úc#Ú c#
b.c  c c "cÚ "c  c8c·c/
?
c· cE624
2.c WITNESS MUST SAY ͞I DON͛T REMEMBER͟
a.c (c %c -c8c(c c/c c(
?
c? (? c

XXI.c HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS REQUIRING UNAVAILABILITY (FRE §804)


a.c GENERALLY (FRE §804(a))
i.c A WITNESS IS UNAVAILABLE (AND THUS THIS EXCEPTION MAY APPLY), IF
1.c ÃÚ cÚc & $c$c Ú%Úc   cc
().c(§804(a)(1))
1 c ÃÚ c ÚcÚc Úcc Ú%c c c c$  c Ú c c
c cc cc(§804(a)(2))c
2 c ÃÚ c ÚÚ cc c !cc$ $%cc c c$  c(§804(a)(3))c
4.c Ã( c(c
(?. c(..c(§804(a)(4))
5.c Ã( cÚc  c$c Úc  c cc c  $ c c c
  cc c Úc    cÚ c  "c  c(§804(a)(5))
ii.c HEARSAY EXCEPTION CAN NOT BE USED BY A PARTY WHO ʹ  Ú   %cc
Ú Ú %c  c c   c$c Úc  

c
c
b.c FORMER TESTIMONY (FRE §804(b)(1))
i.c GENERALLY ʹ Ã  c  cÚcPAST TESTIMONYc c c c %c#Ú cc
 c c c  cÚ "cc c ÚÚ cÚc  Ú  "cÚc$ %c  %
ii.c REQUIREMENT OF HEARING ʹ
'Ú c Úc c c  c cc
1.c INCLUDES ʹ  Ú$Ú %c Ú"c ÚÚ"c ÚcÚ "c 
2.c EXCLUDES ʹ Ú Ú"c Ú"c Ú c "c 
iii.c PARTY AGAINST WHOM TESTIMONY IS BEING OFFERED ʹ c  c c
  c c c  Ú c Ú$%"c  c c cÚ%c  cÚ$Ú c$Ú cc
 c c Ú$%c.. c/ c
?0( (? 
1.c EXAM TIP ʹ & $c$ %c %c cc0 & $Ú Úc!c  cÚc
 Ú c Ú"c#ÚcÚc(

.) c c c c c %c  Úc


#$c c   ÚcÚc Úc  c c cÚ%c  cÚ Ú c
c0 & $Ú
iv.c IDENTITY OF ISSUES ʹ c c c  c # c cÚ c cÚ$ cc
Úc Úc  c cÚ c &ÚÚc c c  cÚ "c c cÚ%cc
0 & $Ú c# c c$ Ú c
c.c DYING DECLARATIONS (FRE §804(b)(2))
i.c GENERALLY ʹ  cÚcc 'Ú "cc c #Úc $ c
c 'Ú
1.c Declarant MUST BELIEVE HIS DEATH IS IMMINENT
2.c Declaration MUST CONCERN CAUSES OF IMPENDING DEATH
ii.c STATEMENT CAN ONLY BE USED ʹ Ú$Ú c·$ÚÚ c  c  cÚÚ c  
1.c CANNOT BE USED IN NON-HOMICIDE CRIMINAL CASES
d.c DECLARATIONS AGAINST INTEREST (FRE §804(b)(3))
i.c GENERALLY ʹ ·  %c& Úc cÚc $ÚÚ c   c c cÚ$ cÚcÚc
$ "cÚcÚc?c  Úc c   -cÚ  c cÚcÚc Ú! %c c %c# c
  c$ cÚccc c %Úc cÚcÚcÚc# cc
1.c REMEMBER ʹ    Úc$c  c c( c·c( 
cc
 c   c c cÚ$ cÚc# c$ 9
2.c DECLARANT MUST KNOW IT WAS AGAINST THEIR INTEREST (objective)
a.c MUST BE AGAINST PENAL OR PECUINARY INTEREST
ii.c EXAMPLES
1.c    cÚc c c$ ! c c  $ cc Ú cÚ c c c  cc
 cÚ$ c cÚcÚÚ$Ú Úcc  ÚcÚ Ú cÚ  cc Ú 
a.c ·(cÃ? c. *c ?
cÃ(..c+Ã c  c cc Úc,
i.c ?
c8cà cc c c Ú!Ú
b.c /c8cc   c ÚÚ Ú%cc  c c c Úc
ccc Ú!c  c Ú c8c·c(c
()
c
? (/(.( 
iii.c STATEMENT EXPOSING DECLARANT TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY ʹ  c  cc
&   c c  cÚc ?c $ÚÚ c c?

?/?
( cÚ$  c
  %cÚ Ú  c ctrustworthiness of the statement
iv.c LOOK FOR CONFESSION
1.c    c  c  c Úc c c  "c  c Úc c
 cc c Ú"cÚ$ Ú  c c   "c  Úc#$c c
 ÚcÚc#c
2.c Declarant would be unavailable ʹ /c?c
()(.c7E63 
3.c STATEMENT NOT AGAINST DECLARANT͛S INTEREST THOUGH ʹ    c c# c
%Úcc$ÚÚ  cÚc#c Ú Ú Ú%Ú$Ú c  

c
c