LAWS OF EVIDENCE
PLG-301-1506
ASSIGNMENT NUMBER FOUR
Bench memo to judge on how the judge should rule on the following issues:
1. Storm's statement about being happy to see the clinic burned to the ground: Rule on 405(b) – Storm's character can apply where his character is strongly questioned. Character Evidence.– Rule 404 (a)(1) – The judge can allow this evidence about Storm's character and apply this rule because the evidence shows Storm's character on this occasion because he has prior convictions in related to arson this statement spotlights the fact. Rule 404(a)(3) can be applied as well here as Storm under Crimes and other acts that his character may be admitted under Rule 607, 608 and 609 Under rule 608(b) Specific instances of …show more content…
401(a) the acetone does have a tendency make a fact more or less probable without the evidence. The acetone give the prosecutor strong evidence against the defense because of the cause of the fire. Rule 403 – The judge can consider the following in application of the Rule 403. The acetone is damaging evidence. 3. Storm's arson conviction from 2001: Rule 609 – Prior Conviction 609 (a)(1)(B) – The rules apply here to attacking Storm's credibility and character for truthfulness by evidence of this criminal conviction. Specific Incidents of Conducts; Prior Convictions - Limitations – Impeachment by Prior Convictions – This can be applied here showing Storm's credibility being attached by this prior conviction. Allow the witness to explain Prior Convictions brought up during cross. Rule 404 – Prior specific acts this rule applies to the 2001 arson conviction because this evidence shows that these actions are in conformity, it shows Storm's character trait having a penchant for arson. Method of proving his character can be applied here under Rule 404(a) where this is proof of character trait is related to an essential element of a charge, claim or defense. Rule 405 – Application for Storm's arson conviction in 2001 that he has a reputation for …show more content…
Masters' rebuttal testimony reporting Storm's statement about the Reds game: Rule 403 – Excluding Relevant, Evidence for Prejudice, Confusing, Waste of Time or Other Reasons. Confusing Issues, misleading the jury, needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Rule 602 – Need for Personal Knowledge – The first basic element that is required of a witness is personal knowledge is what Masters is testifying about that Storm has conflicting information on where he was on the night of the fire. Use of Prior Statements Rule 608(b)(1) This rule can be applied here because it strongly suggests that Storm's untruthful character because he says he couldn't be in Akron, because in one instance he was in Cleveland and the other he was in Cincinnati. His statement is inconsistent where his truthfulness is largely in question. Rule 613 and Rule 801(d)(1)(a) Can both be applied here as Rule 613 shows prior inconsistent statement about where he was is in consequence and is admissible. He made the statements about where he was the night of the fire and perjured himself. The statement about where he was is only admissible to impeach Storm's credibility. The Prosecution will rely on the statement that is the truth upon the matters
PLG-301-1506
ASSIGNMENT NUMBER FOUR
Bench memo to judge on how the judge should rule on the following issues:
1. Storm's statement about being happy to see the clinic burned to the ground: Rule on 405(b) – Storm's character can apply where his character is strongly questioned. Character Evidence.– Rule 404 (a)(1) – The judge can allow this evidence about Storm's character and apply this rule because the evidence shows Storm's character on this occasion because he has prior convictions in related to arson this statement spotlights the fact. Rule 404(a)(3) can be applied as well here as Storm under Crimes and other acts that his character may be admitted under Rule 607, 608 and 609 Under rule 608(b) Specific instances of …show more content…
401(a) the acetone does have a tendency make a fact more or less probable without the evidence. The acetone give the prosecutor strong evidence against the defense because of the cause of the fire. Rule 403 – The judge can consider the following in application of the Rule 403. The acetone is damaging evidence. 3. Storm's arson conviction from 2001: Rule 609 – Prior Conviction 609 (a)(1)(B) – The rules apply here to attacking Storm's credibility and character for truthfulness by evidence of this criminal conviction. Specific Incidents of Conducts; Prior Convictions - Limitations – Impeachment by Prior Convictions – This can be applied here showing Storm's credibility being attached by this prior conviction. Allow the witness to explain Prior Convictions brought up during cross. Rule 404 – Prior specific acts this rule applies to the 2001 arson conviction because this evidence shows that these actions are in conformity, it shows Storm's character trait having a penchant for arson. Method of proving his character can be applied here under Rule 404(a) where this is proof of character trait is related to an essential element of a charge, claim or defense. Rule 405 – Application for Storm's arson conviction in 2001 that he has a reputation for …show more content…
Masters' rebuttal testimony reporting Storm's statement about the Reds game: Rule 403 – Excluding Relevant, Evidence for Prejudice, Confusing, Waste of Time or Other Reasons. Confusing Issues, misleading the jury, needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Rule 602 – Need for Personal Knowledge – The first basic element that is required of a witness is personal knowledge is what Masters is testifying about that Storm has conflicting information on where he was on the night of the fire. Use of Prior Statements Rule 608(b)(1) This rule can be applied here because it strongly suggests that Storm's untruthful character because he says he couldn't be in Akron, because in one instance he was in Cleveland and the other he was in Cincinnati. His statement is inconsistent where his truthfulness is largely in question. Rule 613 and Rule 801(d)(1)(a) Can both be applied here as Rule 613 shows prior inconsistent statement about where he was is in consequence and is admissible. He made the statements about where he was the night of the fire and perjured himself. The statement about where he was is only admissible to impeach Storm's credibility. The Prosecution will rely on the statement that is the truth upon the matters