Evidence

Front 1

Red herrings (5)

Back 1

Not the best evidence, Dead Man's Statute, Self-serving and prejudicial, Res gestae, TV objections ("Witness is not on trial!" "The evidence calls for an inference upon an inference")

Front 2

Irrelevant evidence is…

Back 2

never admissible

Front 3

Relevant evidence…

Back 3

might be admissible

Front 4

Evidence is relevant if…

Back 4

it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the matter more or less probable than it would be without the evidence

Front 5

Is evident about contract party's secret, subjective intent re entering into contract relevant?

Back 5

No, because it is not "of consequence"

Front 6

How to tell if something is "of consequence?"

Back 6

Use knowledge of substantive law in the case

Front 7

When do courts have discretion to exclude relevant evidence?

Back 7

If probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice (look for: emotionally disturbing, admissible for one purpose but inadmissible for another), confusion or waste of time, or policy reasons

Front 8

Evidence of liability insurance is…

Back 8

admissible for any purpose, EXCEPT to prove culpable conduct like negligence, or D's ability to pay a judgment

Front 9

Any time evidence is admissible for one purpose but not for another, raise possibility of…

Back 9

Limiting instruction or court's discretion to exclude - unfair prejudice

Front 10

Evidence of subsequent remedial measures or repairs is…

Back 10

admissible (x was D's responsibility, or to rebut defense of no feasible precaution), EXCEPT to prove culpable conduct, or, in products liability cases, defective product design

Front 11

If D says "the door was safe," can P introduce evidence that D later put a sticker on the door?

Back 11

No - evidence of subsequent remedial measures is inadmissible to prove negligence

Front 12

In a criminal case, pleas (of guilty or nolo contendere), offers to plea, and related statements are…

Back 12

Inadmissible to prove guilt

Front 13

In a civil case, evidence of settlements, offers to settle and related statements are…

Back 13

inadmissible to prove liability to fault

Front 14

Exceptions to settlement rule:

Back 14

No claim yet asserted (offers to settle before other party says anything); no dispute as to liability or damages ("I know I owe you the full $10K, but can we agree I'll just pay you $5?")

Front 15

Evidence of payment or offers to pay medical expenses is inadmissible…

Back 15

to prove liability for injuries.

Front 16

Statements related to payment/offers to pay medical expenses are…

Back 16

always admissible.

Front 17

"if you will sign a release, I will pay your hospital bill. I shouldn't have dropped that banana peel." Admissible?

Back 17

No - because it's all part of a settlement discussion.

Front 18

Similar occurrences evidence means…

Back 18

Evidence about other people or events

Front 19

Evidence of someone doing same thing at same time as injured P may be relevant…

Back 19

if it makes it more likely that D caused P's injury

Front 20

Evidence of prior accidents/claims by P is…

Back 20

usually irrelevant, unless it shows a pattern of P bringing fraudulent claims, or a relevant preexisting condition

Front 21

Evidence of previous similar acts may be relevant…

Back 21

to prove intent (e.g., unbroken string of consistently hiring male over qualified female)

Front 22

Evidence of previous similar acts may be relevant to rebut…

Back 22

a defense of impossibility (eyeball in Whoopsi Cola) - and remoteness in time won't block it

Front 23

Evidence of comparable sales of similar property in the same area may be relevant…

Back 23

to establish value

Front 24

Is habit evidence admissible to show conduct in accordance with habit?

Back 24

Yes

Front 25

What is the difference between habit evidence and character evidence?

Back 25

Habit evidence describes specific conduct and makes no moral judgment; character evidence says something general about a person and conveys a moral judgment

Front 26

How many times does someone have to do something for it to be a habit?

Back 26

Lots - more than a couple

Front 27

Routine business practice evidence is relevant…

Back 27

to show that conduct of an entity was in conformity with that practice on the occasion in question

Front 28

Industrial custom evidence is relevant…

Back 28

to prove standard of care in negligence case.

Front 29

Character evidence approach (4 steps) -

Back 29

What is the purpose for which the evidence is offered? (Character in issue? Circumstantial evidence of conduct in conformity with character? To impeach or support credibility?); What method is used to prove character? (Specific acts/Opinion/Reputation); Civil or criminal case? Is the trait pertinent?

Front 30

Civil case - character evidence is _________ to prove conduct.

Back 30

Inadmissible, EXCEPT for a civil claim based on sexual assault or child molestation - then, D's prior acts of sexual assault or child molestation are admissible to prove conduct

Front 31

Civil case - defamation - character evidence is ___________.

Back 31

Admissible, because character is in issue in a defamation case

Front 32

Civil cases - character is in issue in these types of cases:

Back 32

Defamation, negligent entrustment (parents negligent to give car to teenage son whom they knew to be reckless), child custody.

Front 33

Civil cases - what form of character evidence may be used to prove character when character is in issue?

Back 33

All - opinion, reputation, specific acts

Front 34

Criminal case - character evidence is never offered to prove…

Back 34

Character in issue

Front 35

Character is only in issue in…

Back 35

civil cases

Front 36

Prosecution can be the first to offer evidence of D's character only …

Back 36

In sexual assault/child molestation cases, P can be first to offer evidence that D committed other sexual assaults/child molestations; Where court has admitted evidence of V's character offered by D, prosecution can be first to offer evidence that D has same character trait

Front 37

If D witness testifies that D has reputation for being gentle/non-violent. Can P introduce opinion/reputation/specific acts evidence to rebut?

Back 37

P may introduce opinion/reputation/specific acts information on cross against D, if door is already open

Front 38

If D witness in an assault case testifies that D has reputation for being gentle/non-violent. Can P introduce opinion/reputation/specific acts evidence showing D is honest to rebut?

Back 38

No - honesty is not a pertinent trait here

Front 39

If D opens door for character evidence, may D introduce specific acts evidence of his own good conduct on direct?

Back 39

No

Front 40

If D calls witness who testifies that D is gentle, can P ask on cross, "Did you know that D kicked his evidence professor?"

Back 40

Yes - once D opens door, specific act evidence is admissible on cross

Front 41

If D calls witness who testifies that D is gentle, can P call evidence prof to stand and on direct ask about incident in which D kicked prof?

Back 41

No - specific evidence act is never admissible on direct, even if D opened door

Front 42

D can open door to V's character evidence in two ways:

Back 42

D may offer evidence of V's character. Or, in a homicide case, if D offers evidence that V attacked him first, P may offer evidence of V's character for peacefulness

Front 43

Re character evidence, criminal cases - what's the one time the doors open together:

Back 43

After court admits D's evidence of V's character, P may offer evidence of D's violent character

Front 44

Character evidence rules only applies if…

Back 44

character evidence is admitted to prove character

Front 45

Rape shield/criminal: What evidence of victim's character is admissible?

Back 45

ONLY specific instances of alleged V's conduct is admissible, and only to prove 3d party is source of semen/injury or prior acts of consensual intercourse between D and V. (NO opinion/reputation evidence of V)

Front 46

Rape shield/civil: What evidence of victim's character is admissible?

Back 46

Reputation, opinion, specific acts evidence is admissible if probative value substantially outweighs unfair prejudice (special balancing test) and, w/ reputation evidence, P put V's reputation at issue

Front 47

Specific evidence of D's prior bad acts, inadmissible to prove character, admissible to show (MIMIC)

Back 47

MOTIVE, INTENT, absence of MISTAKE, IDENTITY (requires similarity and uniqueness - e.g. both times wore ballet tutu and swim flippers for bank robbery; not both murderers stabbed Vs in heart), COMMON plan/scheme (D committed act in past that is part of plan to commit crime w/ which he's charged - e.g., stole ice cream truck last week that is the getaway vehicle in instant bank robbery)

Front 48

Can court exclude specific evidence of D's prior bad acts admissible under MIMIC?

Back 48

Yes, if probative value substantially outweighed by prejudice, character or waste of time.

Front 49

What are requirements for a witness to be competent to testify?

Back 49

Personal knowledge (may be limited; distinguish from hearsay - does fact perceived = fact testified to? If not, PK), Present recollection, Communication (directly or through interpreter, Sincerity (oath)

Front 50

Which two types of people may never be competent?

Back 50

Judge or juror in the case

Front 51

Requirements for stating objective?

Back 51

Timely manner, specific way

Front 52

Types of objection - testimonial evidence

Back 52

Hearsay, calls for narrative (overbroad question - question must elicit specific facts); nonresponsive (W didn't answer q); improper leading question (leading q suggests answer to W; no leading on direct unless adverse or hostile W, or W needs help; leading OK on cross as long as stay w/i scope of direct); assumes facts not in evidence ("When did you stop beating your wife?"); argumentative ("Do you expect the jury to believe that load of baloney?"); compound ("Isn't it true that you both cheated on your wife, and you beat her up?" - confusing to jury)

Front 53

Present recollection refreshed - what can be used to refresh?

Back 53

Anything - but other side can inspect it and introduce it into evidence

Front 54

What should P's counsel do when W says memory is not refreshed?

Back 54

Only option: Offer document into evidence under past recollection recorded rule (W once had personal knowledge, doc made by W or under W's direction or was adopted by W (W did/said something to indicate she agreed with contents), doc was accurate when made, W now has insufficient recollection to testify)

Front 55

Opinion testimony - default rule

Back 55

Inadmissible

Front 56

Lay opinion is admissible if…

Back 56

rationally based on W's perceptions (perception must be sufficient) and helpful to trier of fact (gives jury more info than would testimony limited to W's perceptions); cannot be based on scientific or other specialized knowledge

Front 57

Lay opinion is traditionally permissible re these specific qs, if admissibility test met (5)

Back 57

Speed of auto, sanity, intoxication, emotions, value of W's property

Front 58

Lay opinions are never permissible re…

Back 58

legal conclusions - they are not helpful because they give jury less info than testimony describing W's perceptions

Front 59

Expert opinion is admissible if…

Back 59

helpful to jury, W is qualified, W believes in opinion to reasonable degree of certainty, opinion is supported by proper factual basis, opinion is based on reliable principles that were reliably applied

Front 60

In context of expert opinion, helpful means…

Back 60

expert uses specialized knowledge to reach conclusion the average juror could not figure out for herself

Front 61

Expert opinion may be based on one of the following:

Back 61

Admitted evidence, personal knowledge, or inadmissible evidence reasonably relied upon

Front 62

If prior witness testified "X, Y, & Z" about the crime scene, then attorney asks expert W, "assume hypothetically A, B, & C; what is your opinion?" - MAY expert testify?

Back 62

Only if X, Y, & Z match A, B, & C

Front 63

In context of expert opinion, what does "reliable principles, reliably applied" mean?

Back 63

Daubert/Kumho standard: Peer-reviewed and published, tested and subject to retesting, low error rate, reasonable level of acceptance; also, reliable on common sense basis - no logical inconsistencies, considered other pertinent evidence and alternative explanations)

Front 64

Learned treatise hearsay rule

Back 64

A learned treatise is admissible to prove anything stated therein if it is an accepted authority in the field; book is read to jury not admitted into evidence

Front 65

Evidence offered to support a W's credibility is…

Back 65

inadmissible unless W's credibility was attacked first

Front 66

If prior consistent statement was made before bribe or inconsistent statement (once W's credibility was attacked), it is …

Back 66

admissible for all purposes (e.g., not hearsay)

Front 67

If prior consistent statement was made after bribe or inconsistent statement (once W's credibility was attacked), it is …

Back 67

inadmissible for any purpose

Front 68

Impeachment evidence - approach:

Back 68

Intrinsic/extrinsic? Admissible under impeachment technique? Foundation requirements?

Front 69

Extrinsic evidence means…

Back 69

any evidence other than testimony given at the instant proceeding by the witness being impeached

Front 70

Impeachment by contradiction -

Back 70

contracts a fact re which W testified

Front 71

Is extrinsic evidence admissible to impeach W by contradiction?

Back 71

Yes, unless on a collateral matter (fact not material to issues in the case, which says nothing about W's credibility other than to contract the W)

Front 72

Conviction for crimes involving false statement - admissible to impeach?

Back 72

Always admissible (felony/misdemeanor irrelevant) for impeachment (not necessarily conduct) - no discretion; balancing only allowed if conviction > 10 years old.

Front 73

Conviction for crimes involving false statement - admissible to prove conduct in conformity with character?

Back 73

Not necessarily - see character evidence rules

Front 74

Misdemeanors not involving false statement - admissible to impeach?

Back 74

No

Front 75

Felonies not involving false statement - admissible to impeach?

Back 75

Yes, but discretion to exclude/balancing

Front 76

Conviction evidence - extrinsic evidence allowed?

Back 76

Yes (if otherwise admissible)

Front 77

What's the rule about old convictions?

Back 77

If conviction is otherwise admissible, but > 10 years have passed since release from prison or date of conviction (whichever is later), inadmissible unless probative value outweighs unfair prejudice

Front 78

Prior bad acts (NOT BAD ACTS) admissible in both civil and criminal cases is admissible to IMPEACH…

Back 78

If those acts involved lying; intrinsic evidence only

Front 79

What is the one type of conduct P can ask W about, for purposes of impeachment?

Back 79

Lying

Front 80

Is extrinsic evidence admissible to impeach W using opinion/reputation evidence?

Back 80

Yes

Front 81

Forms of impeachment

Back 81

Character for untruthfulness, prior convictions, prior inconsistent statements, bias, incapacity, specific contradiction

Front 82

What is hearsay?

Back 82

An out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted

Front 83

What is a statement for purposes of hearsay?

Back 83

Verbal or written expression of a person, conduct by a person intended to communicate

Front 84

When is info from a machine a "statement" for purposes of hearsay?

Back 84

When a person is involved - e.g., inputting data that the computer spits back

Front 85

When is info from an animal a "statement" for purposes of hearsay?

Back 85

When a person is involved - e.g., "inputting" phrases that a parrot spits back

Front 86

When is "that is my land" not hearsay?

Back 86

Adverse possession case

Front 87

Is it hearsay when the W quotes her own out-of-court statement?

Back 87

Yes (if other factors for hearsay are met)

Front 88

Exemptions from hearsay

Back 88

Party admission, authorized admission, agent admission, adoptive admission, co-conspirator admission, prior inconsistent given under oath at trial/deposition; prior consistent statement offered to rebut charge of recent fabrication/improper influence/motive; statement of identification of a person made after perceiving the person

Front 89

Do you need personal knowledge for a party admission?

Back 89

NO

Front 90

What is the one exception to the requirement for personal knowledge?

Back 90

Party admissions

Front 91

Agent admission

Back 91

Statement by employee concerning matter w/I scope of employment

Front 92

Hearsay - former testimony exception

Back 92

Declarant unavailable; criminal case: party against whom testimony is now offered had during earlier proceeding had opportunity and similar motive to examine; Civil case: party or predecessor-in-interest (requires close privity relationship) had opportunity and similar motive to examine

Front 93

Declarant unavailable means

Back 93

Court exempts declarant due to privilege; declarant is sick or dead; proponent cannot procure declarant's testimony by subpoena or other means; declarant refuses to testify despite court order; declarant's memory fails

Front 94

Hearsay - declaration against interest exception

Back 94

Declarant's out-of-court statement was against financial interest of declarant when made, or would've subjected declarant to future criminal liability; if offered to exculpate the accused, must be corroborating evidence to admit

Front 95

Hearsay - dying declaration exception

Back 95

W must believe he's about to die, and statement must concern cause/circumstances of the impending death; admissible in civil and homicide cases only

Front 96

Which hearsay exception applies only in civil or homicide criminal cases?

Back 96

Dying declaration - note: not even attempted homicide

Front 97

Hearsay - excited utterance exception

Back 97

Availability immaterial - statement relates to startling event/condition and declarant still under stress of excitement caused by event/condition

Front 98

Hearsay - present sense impression exception

Back 98

Availability immaterial - statement describes/explains an event/condition made while declarant was perceiving the event/condition or immediately afterward

Front 99

Hearsay - state of mind exception

Back 99

Availability immaterial - statement describes declarant's then-existing physical or mental condition or state of mind - NOT admissible to prove fact remembered/believed

Front 100

No state of mind exception for…

Back 100

fact remembered or believed

Front 101

Hillman doctrine

Back 101

Jury can infer that declarant acted in accordance with intention

Front 102

Hearsay - medical/physical condition exception

Back 102

Availability immaterial - statement of past or present mental/physical condition, or its cause, o that person or any other person, made for medical diagnosis or treatment - admissible

Front 103

If child says to mom "my head hurts" knowing mom's going to doctor, does medical exception apply?

Back 103

Yes - son makes statement for purpose of med diagnosis/treatment

Front 104

Hearsay - business records exception

Back 104

Availability immaterial - court may exclude if untrustworthy. Record of events, conditions, opinions, diagnoses; kept in course of regularly conducted business; made at/near time of matters described; by person w/ knowledge of facts in record; it was regular practice of business to make such record

Front 105

Hearsay - public records exception - civil

Back 105

Availability immaterial - excludable if untrustworthy. Record describes activities of the office, describes matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law, or contains factual findings resulting from investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law

Front 106

Hearsay - public records exception - criminal

Back 106

Availability immaterial - excludable if untrustworthy. Record describes activities of the office

Front 107

Hearsay - judgment of previous conviction

Back 107

Availability immaterial - Hearsay describing felony convictions is admissible in both civil and criminal cases to prove any fact essential to the judgment, but when offered by prosecution for purposes other than impeachment, judgments against persons other than the accused are inadmissible

Front 108

Confrontation clause excludes…

Back 108

Out-of-court statement if declarant does not testify, is now unavailable, the statement is "testimonial," and defendant had no chance to cross-examine declarant about the statement when it was made.

Front 109

Testimonial

Back 109

statement is made in court, statements made to further a police investigation aimed at producing evidence for a prosecution (not police to deal with ongoing emergency)

Front 110

Every item of nontestimonial evidence must be…

Back 110

authenticated

Front 111

What is the burden for authentification?

Back 111

Sufficient to sustain finding

Front 112

How to authenticate signatures?

Back 112

Admission, eyewitness testimony, expert opinion, lay opinion, circumstantial evidence (ancient documents - authenticity established if document 20+ years old, does not present irregularities on its face, found in place of natural custody), genuine exemplar

Front 113

What are self-authenticating documents?

Back 113

Public documents (deeds) acknowledged documents (where original signature is attested before a notary to be valid), official publications (government pamphlets), newspapers, periodicals, business records, trade inscriptions (tag/label that purports to have been attached in course of business and indicates ownership/control/origin)

Front 114

What's the challenge w/ photos?

Back 114

Personal knowledge - W can testify to whether a photo "fairly and accurately depicts" the scene at time of accident, but only photographer can testify that it IS a photo of the scene taken at the time of the accident

Front 115

How to authenticate non-unique items?

Back 115

Proponent must lay chain of custody demonstrating that this is the specific item proponent claims it to be

Front 116

Small breaks in the chain of custody are…

Back 116

not a problem, because only needs to meet sufficiency standard

Front 117

Best evidence rule -

Back 117

Original is required to prove the contents of a writing, with many exceptions

Front 118

Writing

Back 118

Documents, videos, photos, x-rays, audio recordings, computer disks, or any tangible collection of data

Front 119

When is evidence being offered to prove contents of a writing?

Back 119

Case terms on contents of legal instrument, W's knowledge of facts is obtained from writing

Front 120

Best evidence rule - voluminous documents exception

Back 120

Summary suffices if originals are available for inspection

Front 121

If best evidence rule applies, what type of evidence is admissible to prove contents of a writing?

Back 121

Originals (including computer printouts/certified copies); duplicates (machine-produced copy) - unless genuine question about authenticity of original

Front 122

When may testimony regarding contents of a writing be admissible?

Back 122

When the original was destroyed, unless bad faith by proponent of testimony

Front 123

Privileges recognized under FRE:

Back 123

Attorney-client, spousal, psychotherapist-patient, and social worker-client - UNLESS civil diversity cases - in which case state rules govern

Front 124

Attorney client privilege

Back 124

Confidential communication between attorney and client, made to facilitate legal services

Front 125

Who can waive attorney client privilege?

Back 125

Only the client

Front 126

When is a communication from a corporation employee to the corp.'s attorney privileged?

Back 126

If corp. authorized employee/agent to communicate to the lawyer

Front 127

Which is stronger, the atty/client privilege or the doctor/patient privilege?

Back 127

Attorney-client!

Front 128

How is "confidential" determined?

Back 128

From client's point of view

Front 129

Attorney-client privilege - what about communications made in front of other people?

Back 129

Still confidential if people are in scope of privilege - course of facilitating legal services

Front 130

Attorney-client privilege - what about communications with a lawyer client decides to hire (in his office, formally)?

Back 130

Privileged

Front 131

When does attorney-client privilege not apply (when other factors met)?

Back 131

Professional services sought to further what client knew/should have known to be a crime/fraud, communication relates to alleged breach of duty between lawyer/client; two or more parties consult an attorney on a matter of common interest and the communication is offered by one of these parties against the other

Front 132

Psychotherapist-patient/social worker-client privilege

Back 132

Same basic rules as attorney-client

Front 133

Doctor-patient privilege

Back 133

Not in FRE; exists in CA; majority rule is: A patient has a privilege to prevent disclosure of information confidentially conveyed to a physician where the patient conveyed the information for the purpose of pertaining diagnosis or treatment, and the information was pertinent to obtaining diagnosis or treatment

Front 134

Information conveyed to a doctor in order that the doctor testify

Back 134

Is not privileged

Front 135

Exceptions to doctor-patient privilege

Back 135

Patients puts his physical condition in issue (PI suit), where physician's services sought to aid in crime/fraud/escape capture after crime/tort; in case alleging breach of duty arising out of physician-patient relationship (malpractice); in CA, not recognized in criminal cases

Front 136

Spousal privilege - testifying

Back 136

Spouse has privilege not to testify against spouse in criminal cases - must be married at time of trial - communication can take place at any time; only testifying spouse can waive

Front 137

Spousal privilege - confidential communications

Back 137

Protects confidential spousal communications during marriage - either spouse can assert the privilege

Front 138

Which spousal privilege applies in civil action between spouses?

Back 138

neither

Front 139

Which spousal privilege applies in a criminal prosecution in which one spouse is charged with a crime against the other spouse or one of their kids

Back 139

neither

Front 140

Facts appropriate for judicial notice

Back 140

Must be not subject to reasonable dispute because they are either general known in the jurisdiction, or capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned

Front 141

Procedure for taking judicial notice

Back 141

Party may request judicial notice to compel; otherwise, court has discretion

Front 142

Is jury required to accept judicially noticed fact?

Back 142

Civil - if requested, jury must accept noticed fact as conclusive; in criminal - court instructs jury it may, but is not required to, accept noticed fact

Front 143

May judicial notice be taken on appeal?

Back 143

Yes

Front 144

What counts as a prior inconsistent statement?

Back 144

Actual inconsistency, evasion - not just a lack of memory

Front 145

Under the Fifth Amendment privilege, a witness may...

Back 145

Refuse to answer any question on the ground that may incriminate him (can't be compelled to testify himself)

Front 146

Can a person become familiar with handwriting/speaker's voice/both for purposes of trial?

Back 146

Only voice

Front 147

Who may authenticate handwriting?

Back 147

Someone with personal familiarity, a basis for forming an opinion as to the handwriting derived from specialized knowledge, a particular fact-finding function - e.g., jurors

Front 148

What does a Dead Man Act provide?

Back 148

An interested party, or her predecessor in interest, is incompetent to testify to personal transaction/communication with a deceased when such testimony is offered against the representative/successor in interest of the deceased. State law (but NOT CA) only; apply in fed court diversity cases

Front 149

Evidence of repairs/settlements/insurance is barred because of

Back 149

public policy

Front 150

When a person is charged with one crime, extrinsic evidence of other crimes/misconduct is ______ to establish a criminal disposition

Back 150

Inadmissible (might be admissible to impeach - but only for truthfulness)

Front 151

Why shouldn't D offer to settle before P makes a claim?

Back 151

Because that's a party admission - admissible hearsay exemption - not a settlement offer.

Front 152

Need judges decide preliminary facts outside the presence of the jury?

Back 152

No (at least, not generally)

Front 153

D's attempt to bribe a W would be considered...

Back 153

an admission by conduct; therefore, an exemption to hearsay (or conduct not intended to be an assertion, also nonhearsay)

Front 154

Format for evidence essays

Back 154

Form (legal objections to qs & as), Purpose (logical/legal relevance, extrinsic policy exclusions, character evidence), Presentation (personal knowledge, competency, impeachment, lay/expert opinion, document reliability, judicial notice), Hearsay, Privileges

Front 155

"I looked at the DMV record and it showed a blue Corvette is registered to Dan." Problem?

Back 155

Best evidence rule - in proving contents of a writing, original must be produced or shown to be unavailable

Front 156

"Gasoline is the best firestarter." Hearsay to show intent of arsonist?

Back 156

No. That doesn't prove the truth of the matter asserted. It's circumstantial evidence of talking about ways to start fires/using gasoline

Front 157

If W can't identify who made the statement, does that make it inadmissible?

Back 157

No - it's still admissible that someone made the statement

Front 158

Grand jury testimony of a person not now testifying is...

Back 158

hearsay - not nonhearsay, and not within any exception, because grand jury testimony doesn't give opportunity to cross

Front 159

Judgments of felony conviction are admissibile in both criminal and civil action to...

Back 159

prove any fact essential to the judgment, whether judgment arose after trial or upon a plea of guilty

Front 160

Do courts have discretion over the extent/scope of cross?

Back 160

Yes

Front 161

Does impeachment have to positively controvert a witness's testimony, or can it just cast an adverse reflection on the veracity of a W?

Back 161

The latter - it need not absolutely contradict.