Evidence Exam Notes

Front 1

Rule 401: Relevant Evidence

Back 1

All Evidence must pass through.
Must be both
1. Material: must bear on a fact that is out of consequence to the determination of the action
2. Probative: evidence must have a tendency to the existence of that fact more probable or less probable that is would be without the evidence.

Front 2

Rule 403: Exclusion of Relevant Evidence

Back 2

Relevant Evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

It may also be excluded if there is a risk of misleading the jury, or that a jury may misuse the evidence

Front 3

Rule 407: Subsequent Remedies

Back 3

When after an injury or harm allegedly caused by an event, measures are taken that if taken previously would have made the injury or harm less likely to occur.

Rule Bars admissibility of Subsequent remedial measures to prove: 1. NEGLIGENCE 2. CULPABLE CONDUCT 3. PRODUCT DEFECT 4. NEED FOR WARNING. there is low privative value, and high risk of misuse

Evidence is not bared if used for: 1. OWNERSHIP 2. CONTROL 3. FEASIBILITY 4. TO IMPEACH

Front 4

Rule 408: Compromise/Settlement Negotiations

Back 4

Bars evidence of compromise or of statements made during compromise negotiations only if offered to prove LIABILITY for or invalidity of the claim or its amount.

408 is for CIVIL CASES ONLY!

Evidence can be admitted if used for: 1. Witness Bias, 2. Lack of undue delay or 3. Obstruction of criminal investigation

Front 5

Rule 409: Medical Expenses

Back 5

Expense Evidence of furnishing or offering or promising to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible to prove liability for the injury

Front 6

Rule 410: Plea Bargins

Back 6

Evidence of a plea bargain is Bar from admissibility if used AGAINST THE DEFENDANT
1. guilty plea later withdrawn 2. Nolo Contendere plea 3. Statement in plea proceedings 4. Statements in plea talks with prosecutor

They are admissible to: 1. complete partial account of plea discussions 2. in perjury prosecution if statement under oath on record and in counsel presence

A defendant might offer a plea to avoid the risk of loss after trail and even great penalty

Front 7

Rule 411: Liability Insurance

Back 7

Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongly.

This rule does not require exclusion when offered for another purpose such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness

Front 8

Rule 404(a) - Character Evidence generally

Back 8

Evidence of a persons character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion Expect unless its in one of the three exceptions

Front 9

Rule 404(a)(1) - Character of accused

Back 9

Evidence of a pertinent trait of character by an accused or by the

Front 10

Rule 404(a)(2) Character of alleged victim

Back 10

Evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the alleged victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the procescution to rebut the same, or evidecne of a character trail of peacefulness of the alleged victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the alleged victim was the first aggressor.

Its allows a criminal Defendant to attack the character of the alleged victim, example self defense case where a defendant will assert that the victim was the first aggressor. Keep in mind though, if the defendant opens this door, the prosecution can also walk through and rebut the defense.

Front 11

Rule 404(a)(3) Character of Witness

Back 11

Evidence of the character of witness as provide in rules 607, 608, 609.

This rule is not limited to criminal as 1 and or 2 are.
this rule allows you to permitted prohibited propensity evidence only for impeachment purposes under rule 607 608 609.

Truthfulness.

Front 12

404(b)

Back 12

Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.

It MAY be admissible for other purposes such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake, or accident. PROBIDED THAT UPON REQUEST BY THE ACCUSERD, THE PROSECUTION IN A CRIMINAL CASE SHALL PROVIDE REASONABLE NOTICE IN ADVANCE OF TRAIL OR DURING TRAIL IF COURT EXCUSE PRETRIAL NOTICE ON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN.

FOR EXAMPLE, you can assert that other crimes or acts are in connection to show a plan. A guy is busted for cracking a bank vault, evidence of a previous bank vault cracking that was done in a very rare way can be submitted when to show this bank vault was done in the exact same way. Can be used to show plan, intent, or assert identity.

Same example guy gets busted for making drugs, says he didnt know what he was doing was a mistake. Evidence that he was busted for drugs a while ago can be asserted that he had the knowledge of making drugs. Can be asserted for knowledge, and absence of mistaker, and intent.

IT CANT NOT BE ALLOWED TO SHOW THAT HE IS A BAD PERSON, OR A THIEF THUS WHY HE MUST BE A BAD PERSON HE DOING WHAT HE WAS DOING CONVICTED.

Front 13

Rule 405 Methods of Proving Character

Back 13

This is the procedural methods used to introduce 404(a) evidence.

405(a) all cases in which character evidence or character trait of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form of an option. ON Cross X inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct.

What this means is if your allowed to used the evidence under 404(a) it may be only submitted in the form of reputation or opinion. However, this opens the door on Xcross, to asked relevant specific instances of conduct to see how well the witness truly knows the defendant.

405b) This is where character/trait of a person is an ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF A CHARGE CLAIM OR DEFENSE. proof may also be made of specific instances of that persons conduct.
THIS IS INDESCRIBABLE NARROW, it must be an essential element of the crime. Its so narrow that its most used in defamation to show ones evil, or negligent entrustment cases, or cases where a CRIMINAL DEFENDANT seeks to establish entrapment.

Front 14

Rule 406 Habit Routine Practice

Back 14

Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitness is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.

Must be something you do without thinking, such a putting on your seat belt. Crime is bad habit evidence because no means rea. Its more about how you responded to an event.

Always parking in a certain space in an office building would be treated a habit while always driving carefully would be treated as a character trait.

Front 15

Rule 607

Back 15

the credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party including the party calling the witness.

Can only be done in the forum of reputation or option.
Rational because only that witness can give certain essential testimony. Cannot attack someones morals if they have nothing to do with trustfulness.

Front 16

Rule 608(a)

Back 16

permits EITHER party to offer evidence of the witness character for truthfulness or untruthfulness in the form of opinion or reputation.

TWO LIMITED PRINCIPLES
1. the evidence must pertain to character of truthfulness or untruthfulness not to character for peacefulness temperance or anything else.
2. A witness character for truthfulness may be supported ONLY after it has been attacked.

Must be attacked FIRST, can not rise good character evidence until it has been attacked first.

KEEP IN MIND THIS ABOUT THE WITNESS NOT THE DEFENDANT

Front 17

Rule 608(b)

Back 17

permits a party to ask on Cross about specific instances of the conduct of a witness
1. On Cross of the principal witness (the on your trying to impeach)
2. During cross of a CHARACTER WITNESS who has offered testimony about the principal witness character for truthfulness or unfaithfulness.

Limitations
1 specific instance of conduct must be probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness
2. May not be proved by extrinsic evidence.
lawyer must accept the witness answer to the questions.

1. must survive a rule 403 test
2. good faith basis for asking the question.
3. judge must exercise reasonable control to protect witness from harassment or undue embarrassment
4. evidence is covered by 609, and is excluded by 609

Front 18

Rule 609 (a) General Rule

Back 18

(1)If a witness other than the criminal defendant, has be convicted of a crime can be allowed IF
a. is it passed 403, the probative value of admitting the evidence outweighs its undue prejudice.
b. if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law of which the witness was convicted.

2. Evidence that any witness has be convicted of a crime shall be admitted if it involved DISHONESTY or FALSE STATEMENT (elements of crime requires). With No Balance Test Needed

Front 19

Rule 609 (b) Time Limit

Back 19

Cannot submit evidence of a conviction if more than 10 years have passed since the date of conviction or release of the wittiness, which ever is the later date

However if the court determines that the probative value of the conviction supported by specific acts and circumstances substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. and gives the adverse party sufficient advance written notice of intent to such the evidence, and a fair opportunity to contest the use it may be submitted.

Front 20

609 (C) Effect of pardon, annulment or certificate of rehabilitation.

Back 20

The conviction is not admissible if its been subject of a pardon, annulment, of cert of rehab, other other equivalent procedure based on a finding of the rehab of the person conceived, and the person has not been convicted of a second crime which was punishable by death or jail of a year or more.

The conviction has been the subject of a pardon or annulment or other based on a finding of innocence.

Front 21

609 (d) Juvenile Adjudication

Back 21

evidence of juvenile adjudications is generally not allowed, the court may in a CRIMINAL CASE allow evidence of a juvenil adjudication of a witness other than the accused if conviction of the offense would be admissible to attack the credibility of an adult, and the court is satisfied that admission in evidence is necessary for a fair determination of the issue of guilt or innocence

Front 22

609(e) pendency of appeal

Back 22

the pendency of an appeal therefrom does not render evidence of a conviction imadmississble. Evidence of the pendency of an appeal is and admssible.

Front 23

What is the 609(1) balancing test

Back 23

requirement that a determination be made that the probative value of the admitting the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect.

1. the nature of the crime - acts of violence which may result from a short temper, a combative nature, extreme provocation or other causes generally have little to nothing bearing on honesty and veracity.

2. Time of conviction and the witness subsequent history - factor in the continued conflicts whit the law the defendant had after his alleged rehab this factor supports the admission of the convictions for impeachment purposes.

3. Similarity between the past crime and the charged crime

4. importance of defendants testimony - unfairly prejudicial of a prior conviction when you have criminal defendant testifying as opposed to a witness with a prior conviction

5. The centrality of credibility issue - 4 and 5 counter balance each other,.

Front 24

Rule 601 competency of the witness

Back 24

Every person is competent to be a witness except as otherwise provied in these rules. However in civil actiosn with respect to an element of a claim or defense as to which state law supplies the rule of decision, the competent of a witness shall be determined with state law.

Front 25

Rule 602 Lack of personal knowledge

Back 25

a witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witenss has personal knowledge of the matter.

if someones testifies as a law not an expert, witness evidence must be introduced that could support a jury finding that the witness has direct knowledge of the subject of his or her testimony. That evidence may be introduced as part of the witness own testimony

Front 26

Rule 603 Oath or Affirmation

Back 26

Before testifying every witness shall be required to declare that the witness will testify to the truth.

Front 27

Rule 610 Religious Beliefs or Opinions

Back 27

a witness religious beliefs or views may not be the subject of evidence introduced as relevant to credibility.

Front 28

Rule 801 Hearsay Definitions

Back 28

A. a statement is an oral or written assertion or nonverbal conduct of a person if it is intended by the person as an assertion. Look for a question mark on its reliability.

b. Declarant- a person who makes a out of court statement

c. Hearsay - a statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trail or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted

step 1. statement made out of court
step 2. offered for the truth of the matter asserted

Must look at what its being intended to convey (first step)

Front 29

Rule 802

Back 29

Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules
The 5 categories under 801(b)

Front 30

801(b)(1) Prior Statements by Witness

Back 30

A. Prior Inconsistent Statements
B. Prior Consistent Statements
C. Statements of Identification

Front 31

801(b)(2) Admissions by Party Opponents.

Back 31

This is when the Declarent is the one whom makes the statement.

A. Party's own statements
B. Adoptive Statements
C. Statements by Spokespersons
D. Statements by Agents
E. Co conspirator's Statement

Front 32

Rule 803 Exceptions in which the availability of the declaration is immaterial

Back 32

1. Present sense impressions
2. excited utterances
3. Then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition
4. Statments for Medical Diagnosis
5. Records Recollections
6/7 Business Records
8/10 Public Records and Reports

Front 33

804 Exceptions applicable only when the Declarant is unavailable

Back 33

b(1) Former Testimony
b(2) Dying Declarations
b(3) Statements against interest
b(6) Forfeitureby Wrongdoing

Front 34

Reasoning behind 801(d)(2)

Back 34

Rule provides that statements of party opponents thought hearsay are nonetheless admissible against their maker.
IN BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL actions extends to include spokespersons agents or co conspirators

Declarant Statements admitted under this rule are NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE personal knowledge. There is no requirement that the opponent have admitted anything but only that she have said something

Front 35

Rule 801(d)(2)(A)

Back 35

A statement is not hearsay if the statement is offered against a party and is the party's own statement in either an individual or a representative capacity.

Front 36

Rule 801(d)(2)(B)

Back 36

A statement is not hearsay if the statement is offered against a party and is a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth.

Front 37

Rule 801(d)(2)(C)

Back 37

A Statement is not hearsay if the statement is offered against a party and is a statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject

Front 38

Rule 801(d)(2)(D)

Back 38

A statement is not hearsay if the statement is offered against a party and is a statement by the party agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship

Front 39

Rule 801(d)(2)(E) and 104(a)

Back 39

a statement is not hearsay if the statement is offered against a party and is a statement by a co-conspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy

Under 104(a) you the judge must only determine if there was in fact a conspiracy first.

This rule almost never applies to a confession made knowingly to the police and implicating ones association.

Front 40

Rule 613 Past inconsistent statements offered to impeach

Back 40

This is when what is said is not offered substantively.

1. Declarant must have testified
2. Questioning lawyer must have a good faith belief that witness made past statement

Front 41

801(d)(1)(A) Past Inconsistent Statements offered substantively

Back 41

Declarant Must:
1. Testify at trial or Hearing and
2. Be Subject to Cross X concerning the Statement

Past Statement is Inconsistent and Was
1. Given under Oath and
2. At a Proceeding or Deposition

Front 42

801(d)(1)(B) Past Consistent Statements

Back 42

Declarant Must:
1. Testify at Trial or Hearing and
2. be subject to Cross X concerning the statement

Past Statement is Consistent is
1. Offered to REBUT CHARGE OF RECENT FABRICATION or IMPROPER MOTIVE and meets the
Tome rule

Tome Rule - done before motive allowed introduction of a Declar consistent out of court statements to rebut a charge of recent fabrication improper influence or motive only when those statments were made BEFORE the charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive

Front 43

801(d)(1)(C) Statement of Identification

Back 43

Declarant Must
1. Testify at trail or hearing and
2. Be subject to Cross X concerning the statement.

Past Statement Identifies a Person and was Made after Declaration Perceived the Person

Front 44

804(b)(1) Past testimony

Back 44

Must be tested before - Grand Jury is a different standard

Declarant must be unavailable defined by rule 804(a)

Past Statement Was
1. Testimony (given under oath)
2. at a proceeding or deposition
3. subject to X by party against whom now offered, who then had similar motive

Front 45

612 Refreshing Witness Testimony

Back 45

Not using evidence ofr substance

1. witness must be on stand; Memory must be exhausted

Front 46

803(5) Past Recollection Recorded

Back 46

Witness must be on Stand, Must have insufficent Recollection

Record 1. was made or adopted when witness memory was fresh and
2. reflected witness knowledge correct

Front 47

Rule 804(a) Declar Unavailable when?

Back 47

Unavailability as a witness includes situations in which the declarant
1. privilege
2. persists in refusing to testify despite court order to do so
3. lack of memory of the subject matter of Declar statments
4. is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or then existing physical or mental illness or infirmity
5. Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of a statement has been unable to procure the declarants attendance, by process or other reasonable means.

This does not apply if if these are done for the purpose of preventing the witness from attending or testifying

Front 48

804(b)(3) Hearsay Exception Statement Against Interest

Back 48

A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarants interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to CIVIL OR CRIMINAL liability, or to render a invalid claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the declarants position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true.

A statement statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.

check to see if each statement tested is against the persons interest.

Front 49

804(b)(2) Hearsay Exception Dying declarations

Back 49

Statement under belief of impending death.
In a prosecution for HOMICIDE OR IN A CIVIL ACTION or proceeding a statement made by a declarany while believe that the declarants death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstance of what the declarant believed to be impending death.

The statement has to be about his death. Must be spoken without hope of recovery and in the shadow of impending death.

104(a) requirements
1. still requires some personal knowledge
2. Dying Declarant must be competent

Front 50

804(b)(6) Hearsay Exception: Forfeiture by wrongdoing

Back 50

a statement offered against a party that has engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing that was intended to and did procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness

Front 51

Hearsay Exception Availability of Declarant is IMMATERIAL
803(1) Present Sense Impression

Back 51

a statment describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition or immediately thereafter

The statement must describe or explain something while it is going on or immediately after it was going on. Think a 911 Call

Front 52

Hearsay Exception Availability of Declarant is IMMATERIAL
803(2) Excited Utterance

Back 52

A statement is relating to a starling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event of condition.

there is no time frame, however a Judge in a 104(a) must rule on how excited one was/is

Front 53

Hearsay Exception Availability of Declarant is IMMATERIAL
803(3) Then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition.

Back 53

A statement of the declarants then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition, but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remember.

Should render statements of intent by a declarant admissible to only prove his future conduct, not the future conduct of another.
Example: I plan go to get food,

Front 54

Hearsay Exception Availability of Declarant is IMMATERIAL
803(3) Then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition.

Back 54

A statement of the declarants then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition, but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remember.

Should render statements of intent by a declarant admissible to only prove his future conduct, not the future conduct of another.
Example: I plan go to get food,

Front 55

Hearsay Exception Availability of Declarant is IMMATERIAL
803(4) Statement for Medical Diagnosis

Back 55

statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing
1. medical history
2. past or present symptoms
3. general character of the cause or external source there of insofar as reasonable pertinent to diagnosis or treatment

Two Part Test
1. is the declarants motive consistent with the purpose of the rule (tell the truth to your doctor so you can receive the proper medical treatment
2. is it reasonable for the physician to rely on the information in diagnosis or treatment?

Front 56

Rule 612 Writing Used to refresh Memory

Back 56

If a witness uses a writing to refresh memory for the purpose of testifying
1. while testifying or
2. before testifying

an adverse party is entitled to have the writing produced at the hearing to inspect it and to cross examine the wintess and introduce in evidence thsoe portions which relate to the testimony of the wintess.

It must be an independent recollection! Cant be shown a number and be like oh yes i remember the number now.

Front 57

Hearsay Exception Availability of Declarant is IMMATERIAL
803(6) Records of Regularly Conducted activity

Back 57

a memo report record or data comp, in any form, of acts, event, conditions, opinions, diagnoses, made at or near the time by, a person with knowledge if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the reports.

CANT NOT BE MADE IN ANTICIPATION OF LIGATION EXAMPLE POLICE REPORT!

Front 58

Hearsay Exception Availability of Declarant is IMMATERIAL
803(8) Public Records and Reports
and 10

Back 58

A. the activities of the office or agency or
B. matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report. EXCLUDING IN CRIMINAL CASES matter observed by law enforcement (police reports)
C. In civil actions and proceedings and against the government in criminal cases, factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.

10. Must be done as part of a regular activity.

Front 59

Rule 807 Residual Exception

Back 59

A statement not specifically covered by 803 or 804 but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness is not excluded by the hearsay rules if
1. the state is offered as evidence of a materiel face
2. statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than ANY other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts
3. the general purpose of these rules and the interest of justice will be best served by admission of the statement

Its must be known to the adverse party in advance of trial

Front 60

Rule 701 Opinion Testimony by Lay Witness

Back 60

if the witness is NOT testifying as an expert, The witness testimony in the form of OPINIONS or INFERENCES is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (3 requirements)
a. rationally based on the perception of the witness - first hand knowledge
b. helpful to a clear understanding of the witness testimony or the determination of a fact in issue - helpful in resolving issues
C. not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the cope of 702

Need some sorta of Foundation You dont have to be RIGHT its just your option

Front 61

Rule 702 Testimony by Experts

Back 61

If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the tier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge skill experience training or education may testify if
1. the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data
2. the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods , and
3. the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

Judge as the gate keepers can rule an expert as an expert

Front 62

Who qualifies as an expert?

Back 62

1. Proper qualifications
2. Proper Topic
3. Sufficient Basis
4. Relevant and reliable methods
5. Survives a Rule 403 test

Front 63

Rule 703 Bases of Opinion Testimony by Experts

Back 63

An expert may base her opinion on three sorts of facts
1. Rely on those facts perceived by expert before the hearing - like a way witness expert may testify to facts she personally observed
2. Rely on those facts perceived by or made known to the expert at the hearing
3. Rely on those facts amde known to the expert before the hearing

Front 64

Rule 705 Disclosure of Facts or Data Underlying Expert Opinion

Back 64

The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give reasons therefor without first testifying to the underlying facts or data, unless the court requires otherwise. The expert may in any event be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on X

Front 65

Rule 704 Opinions on Ultimate Issues

Back 65

a. except as provided in subdivision b testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be deiced by the tier of fact

testimony may contain conclusions on issues that the trier of fact must deiced

b. no expert witness testifying with respect to the mental state or condition of a defendant in a CRIMINAL CASE may state an opinion or inference as to wether the defendant did or did not have the mental state or condition constituting an element of the charged crime or of a defense thereto. FOR THE JUDGE ONLY!

Experts in criminal cases are prohibited from expressing an opinion on the specific issue of a defendants possession of a mental state that is an element of a crime

Front 66

Rule 901(a) General Provision

Back 66

the requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what it proponent claims

Front 67

Rule 901(a) General Provision

Back 67

the requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what it proponent claims

when a party seeks to introduce a document or any object or thing the party must also provide a basis for a finding that the document or object really is what the proponent claims it is.

This is is another rule that starts from the first time you analysis a peace of evidence

Front 68

Rule 902 Self Authentication

Back 68

Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to the fallowing
1. Domestic public documents under seal
2. Domestic public documents not under seal
3. foreign public documents
4. certified copies of public records
5. official publications
6. Newspapers and periodicals
7. trade inscriptions and the like
8. acknowledged documents
9. commercial paper
10. Presumptions under Acts of Congress
11. Certified domestic records of regularly conducts activity
12. certified foreign records of regular conducted activity.

Front 69

1002 Requirement of Original

Back 69

to prove the content of a writing, record or photo the original is required except as otherwise provided in these rules (1001)

Front 70

1002 Requirement of Original

Back 70

to prove the content of a writing, record or photo the original is required except as otherwise provided in these rules (1001)

This happens in TWO scenarios
1. where the writing recording or photo IS ITSELF AT ISSUE IN THE LITIGATION.
Think copyright, does yours says the same things as the plaintiffs you need the originals.
2. when the circumstances in which the litigant is proving the content.
example bank robbery all witness are dead, procs wants to admit a tape of the robbery.

Front 71

1003 Admissibility of Duplicates

Back 71

a duplicate is admissible as are originals unless
1. there are issues as to its authenticity, or
2. circumstances would make it unfair to replace the original with a duplicate

Front 72

1004 Admissibility of other Evidence of Contents

Back 72

Original not required and other evidence is admissible if
1. the original is lost or destroyed, unless lost by the proponent or lost in bad faith
2. the orginal is not obtainable
3. if the party opponent is in possession of the original and will not produce
4. collateral matters the writings recording photo isnt closely related to the controlling issue.

Front 73

Rule 501 General privileges

Back 73

Fallows traditional common law privileges
Material
Clergy
Psychotherapist
Attorney