Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

10 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
As a general rule, can lay witnesses offer opinion testimony?
No-- but general is operateive word.
when can lay witnesses offer opinion testimony?
they must satisfy two conditions
1. it is 'rationally based on the witness' perception
2 it is 'helpful to a clear understanding of the W's testimony or the determination of a fact in issue (FRE 701)
What are the general exceptions to the general rule that lay witnesses cannot offer opinion testimony?
examples of lay opinion testimony that is rationally based on W's perception and helpful to understand a fact in issue:
1. physical apearance of a person (weight, age, height, drunkenness, strength)
2. Recognition (looks, voice, handwriting)
Emotional state of another (angry, happy etc)
4. Speed Distance, Temperature (approximations within everyday experience...not 'the car was going 94 miles an hour')
5. Value of one's own goods or services;
Visible signs of irrational behavior; and
7. Odors.
Under the FRE under what circumstances is expert testimony admissible.
FRE 702- expert testimony is addmissible where
1. the scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge of the expert
2. will assist the trier of fact
3. to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.
Before scientific evidence may be admitted, what requirements must it meet, under the FRE
1. the evidence must be scientifically valid
2. the reasoning or methodology behind the evince can properly be applied to the facts in issue.
In determining whether particular scientific evidence is 'scientifically valid' as teh Daubert standard requires it to be, what factors should the court look at
no exhaustive list, but these help
1. whether the theory or technique has been or can be reliably tested (if yes, makes it more likely to be found valid)
2. whether it has been subjected to peer review (if yes, then < will be valid)
3. the size of the known or potential error rate in using the technique (smaller rate=better)
4.whether the technique has been 'generally accepted' (yes =better. but no does not = invalid. this was sole question under frye test.)
5. whetehr the technique grows naturallly out of work that the testifying expert was conducting independently of the litigation, or was instead developed specifically for the present litigation (independent= better)
In forming his opinoin, may an expert rely on inadmissible evidence
Yes. FRE 703---
IT's only necessary that the expert rely on those things a reasonable expert in the field normally relies on.
(eg- so if doc is exp wit. he can rely on inadmis test. from parents about the child's symptoms, even if he didn't see the child)
can an amish guy that rarely sees a car testify that at the time of the crash he saw the car going 84 miles an hour?
no. he couldn't possibly know that speed, plus, 'speeds at high speeds are impossible for lay people to testify to)
can Bob Barkley testify as a lay witness that it appeared like his friend had lou gehrigs disease?
no- he can just testify to what his buddy was suffering ...because diseases often share symptoms, so he can only talk about syumptoms
can lay witness testify in a case about D's sanity tat he say D 'running around the zoo, babbling at the animals and acting like a lunatic'?
yes, it's just a testimony as to what the D's actions were, and that they didn't seem rational, so it's not about his metnal determination of sanity.