Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
29 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
What evidence rules may be used in Louisiana Mock Trial?
|
Rules of Evidence, Mock Trial Version. No other evidence rules apply or may be used for purposes of mock trial.
|
Use this if opponent begins using other rules, i.e. Midlands Rules of Evidence.
|
|
|
Rule 101
|
These Rules of Evidence (Mock Trial Version) govern the trial proceedings of the Louisiana High School Mock Trial Competition
|
Use this if opponent begins using other rules, i.e. Midlands Rules of Evidence.
|
|
|
What are the 400's?
|
The rules on relevancy. This includes character evidence and subsequent remedial measures
|
For character evidence re: witnesses, see witness rules 607, 608, 609.
|
|
|
401 - Definition of relevant evidence
|
"Relevant Evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
|
Does the evidence make what you are trying to prove more or less likely.
|
|
|
402 - Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible
|
Relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided in these Rules. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.
|
Think inadmissible character evidence and hearsay. Relevant, but still not admissible. Why? See 403 - unfair prejudice (character); confusion and misleading (hearsay).
|
|
|
403 - Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion or Waste of Time
|
Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, if it confuses the issues, if it is misleading, or if it causes undue delay, wastes time, or is a needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
|
Objections: asked and answered (cumulative evidence); hearsay (misleading and confusing); narrative (undue delay, wastes time)
|
|
|
404(a) - Character Evidence
|
(a) Evidence of a person's character or character trait is not admissible to prove action regarding a particular occasion, except:
(1) and (2) omitted (criminal only) (3) Character of Witness - Evidence of the character of a witness as provided in Rules 607, 608, and 609. |
See the witness articles 600's. Basically, can only ask about character (good person, bad person) re: whether they are truthful or untruthful - liar or not. But, this covers a lot of things - failing to tell arguably is untruthful.
|
|
|
404(b) - Other crimes, wrongs, or acts
|
(b) Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove character of a person in order to show an action conforms to character. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
|
Lots of wiggle room here:
Objection; improper character evidence. Response; we are using his failure to have the form signed to show knowledge that J didn't agree to no drug policy. |
|
|
405(a) Reputation or Opinion
|
In all cases where evidence of character or a character trait is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination, questions may be asked regarding relevant specific conduct.
|
Does Terry Swift have a reputation for truthfulness? Has he told the parents or his students about his marijuana use?
|
|
|
406 Habit; Routine Practice
|
Evidence of the habit of a person or the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eye-witnesses, 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.
|
This lets in character evidence to prove action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion. It's a high standard.
|
|
|
407 - Subsequent Remedial Measures
|
When measures are taken after an event which, if taken before, would have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such a proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment.
|
This rule does not allow you to penalize for trying to do better. But, look at all the other ways it can come in. The doctor who comes to school now and lectures on steriods is a subsequent remedial measure.
|
|
|
602 - Lack of Personal Knowledge
|
A witness may not testify to a matter unless the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness' own testimony. This rule is subject to the provision of Rule 703, related to opinion testimony by expert witnesses.
|
"How do you know, fool?"
|
|
|
608(a) - Opinion and reputation evidence of character
|
(a) The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation, but subject to these limitations: (1) The evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, and (2) evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked
|
You can't talk about what an honest Abe a witness is until someone says he's a liar.
|
|
|
608(b) - Specific instances of conduct
|
(b) Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness' credibility, other than conviction of crime as provided in Rule 609, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the Court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be asked on cross examination of the witness (1) concerning the witness' character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or (2) Concerning the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of another witness as to which character the witness being cross-examined has testified.
|
You can use specific instances of conduct, like Jamie Knight covering for Coach smoking weed, on cross. Both as to truthfulness of Jamie Knight, and Coach Swift
|
|
|
609(a) - Attacking credibility by evidence of conviction in civil cases - general civil rule
|
(a) For the purposes of attacking the credibiity of a witness in civil cases, no evidence of the details of the crime of which he was convicted is admissible. However, evidence of the name of the crime of which he was convicted, and date of conviction is admissible if the crime: (1) Was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of six months under the law under which he was convicted, and (2) Involved dishonesty or false statement regardless of the punishment.
|
Coach's marijuana conviction can't come in.
|
|
|
611(a) - control by court
|
(a) The Court shall exercise reasonable control over questioning of witnesses and presenting evidence so as to ... (2) avoid needless use of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.
|
Objection: asked and answered; harrassing the witness;
|
|
|
611(b) - scope of cross-examination
|
(b) the scope of cross examination shall not be limited to the scope of the direct examination, but may inquire into any relevant facts or matters contained in the witness' statement, including all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from those facts and matters, and may inquire into any omissions from the witness statement that are otherwise material and and admissible.
|
Use this to counter a "fishing expedition" objection or an "unfair extrapolation" objection or any "outside the facts in the affidavit" type objection
|
|
|
611(c) - leading questions
|
Though shalt not lead on direct. Thou shalt lead on cross.
|
|
|
|
611(d) - redirect/recross
|
Scope limited to questions asked on cross or redirect. Remember, don't lead on redirect. You can lead on recross.
|
Please try to recross!
|
|
|
612 -writing used of refresh memory
|
Court decides whether you have to show adverse party the writing first.
|
|
|
|
613(a) - examining witness concerning prior statement
|
In examining a witness concerning a prior statement made by the witness, whether written or not, the statement need not be shown nor its contents disclosed to the witness at that time, but on request the same shall be shown or disclosed to opposing counsel.
|
You don't have to show opposing counsel the affidavit before you impeach, unless they ask for it. You don't have to show the witness at all.
|
|
|
613(b) - extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statement by a witness
|
(b) Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless the witness is afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and the opposing party is afforded an opportunity to question the witness.
|
This is evidence outside the statement of the witness himself. Like, your friend said you were on the way to the bank, and you said you were on the way to the store.
|
|
|
What are the 600's?
|
Rules about witnesses,
|
|
|
|
What are the 700's?
|
Rules about opinions
|
|
|
|
701 - opinion testimony by lay witness
|
If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness' testimony in the form or opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are rationally based on the perception of the witness and helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.
|
Objections: Lack of personal knowledge; speculation; prohibited opinion by lay witness
|
|
|
702 - testimony by experts
|
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier 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 in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
|
Key terms: knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education = opinion - make sure they match!
|
|
|
703 - bases of opinion testimony by experts
|
The facts of data upon which an expert bases an opinion may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field in forming opinions or inferences, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.
|
|
|
|
704 - opinion on ultimate issue
|
opinion or inference testimony otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an issue to be decided by the trier of fact
|
Try this one when they object to questions concerning liability or responsibility
|
|
|
705 - disclosure of facts or data underlying expert opinion
|
The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give reasons therefore without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data, unless the Court requires otherwise. The expert in any event may be required to disclosed the underlying facts or date on cross examination.
|
Put expert opinions first, then underlying facts.
|
