I am Lord, God, and Master of the Federal Rules of Evidence

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
savagedm
Posts: 392
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 2:51 am

Re: I am Lord, God, and Master of the Federal Rules of Evidence

Postby savagedm » Tue Dec 14, 2010 5:43 am

This thread is so full of win potential.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: I am Lord, God, and Master of the Federal Rules of Evidence

Postby Renzo » Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:28 am

BunkMoreland wrote:
Renzo wrote:
X get's injured in D's hotel and claim's the steps he got injured on were unreasonably dangerous. D seeks to admit as evidence that in the last 5 years no one has gotten hurt on the steps. As a judge, what are you thinking about when deciding whether or not to admit this evidence?



Isn't this also from some case where they decided noncomplaint is considered non-assertive conduct and thus "not hearsay" under the usual definitions (and thus, it's allowed if relevant).


Oh, good call. No assertion=no hearsay.

User avatar
Big Shrimpin
Posts: 2468
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: I am Lord, God, and Master of the Federal Rules of Evidence

Postby Big Shrimpin » Tue Dec 14, 2010 1:34 pm

Is 804a a preliminary question under 104a? That's probably a stupid question, I know.

User avatar
Big Shrimpin
Posts: 2468
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: I am Lord, God, and Master of the Federal Rules of Evidence

Postby Big Shrimpin » Tue Dec 14, 2010 1:39 pm

Big Shrimpin wrote:Is 804a a preliminary question under 104a? That's probably a stupid question, I know.


Nevermind, I think it is. US v. Bell, 500 F.2d 1287, 1290 (2d Cir. 1974).

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: I am Lord, God, and Master of the Federal Rules of Evidence

Postby Renzo » Tue Dec 14, 2010 7:17 pm

Big Shrimpin wrote:
Big Shrimpin wrote:Is 804a a preliminary question under 104a? That's probably a stupid question, I know.


Nevermind, I think it is. US v. Bell, 500 F.2d 1287, 1290 (2d Cir. 1974).

Yep, that's what I'd say.

User avatar
joobacca
Posts: 282
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:49 am

Re: I am Lord, God, and Master of the Federal Rules of Evidence

Postby joobacca » Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:37 pm

impeachment of witness -- want to use prior conviction for shoplifting. punishable for less than one year, so 609 is out. does that mean extrinsic evidence is out? that is, can the adverse party straight up ask the witness if he/she was convicted of this crime? that's not extrinsic evidence, and it seems OK to me...

and what the hell does 608(b) mean: evidence of truthful char is admissibleonly after char f W for truth has been attacked by op/rep or otherwise

does that mean some other party has to attack first? that would be a catch 22. so i assume that's not what it means

edit: nevermind... i reread 609. doesn't mention extrinsic evidence at all... just says evidence. bad outline i guess.
edit2: but 608 says other than an evidence of a crime in 609 -- you can't use extrinsic evidence -- does that mean non-extrinsic evidence relating to convictions (falling short of 609) are okay?

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: I am Lord, God, and Master of the Federal Rules of Evidence

Postby Renzo » Tue Dec 14, 2010 10:42 pm

joobacca wrote:impeachment of witness -- want to use prior conviction for shoplifting. punishable for less than one year, so 609 is out. does that mean extrinsic evidence is out? that is, can the adverse party straight up ask the witness if he/she was convicted of this crime? that's not extrinsic evidence, and it seems OK to me...

and what the hell does 608(b) mean: evidence of truthful char is admissibleonly after char f W for truth has been attacked by op/rep or otherwise

does that mean some other party has to attack first? that would be a catch 22. so i assume that's not what it means

edit: nevermind... i reread 609. doesn't mention extrinsic evidence at all... just says evidence. bad outline i guess.
edit2: but 608 says other than an evidence of a crime in 609 -- you can't use extrinsic evidence -- does that mean non-extrinsic evidence relating to convictions (falling short of 609) are okay?


Your problem with the shoplifting conviction is that shoplifting is probably not probative of a character for dishonesty, so it probably can't come in, as seen in Manske. But, it's a borderline crime.

And yes, you are reading 608(a)(2) right (I think that's what you meant, at least). It allows evidence of good character, but only in an attempt to rehabilitate after someone has attacked the credibility of the witness with character evidence. It's not a catch 22, you have to wait until the witness' character has been attacked, then you can bring in evidence of a truthful character to rehab the witness.

608 says you can impeach with specific crimes under 609, and/or you can ask about specific (non-conviction) acts on cross exam to impeach, but you are stuck with the answer they give. Even if the witness lies and denies they did whatever you asked about, you can't bring in extrinsic evidence to prove that they did whatever you asked about.

sophie316
Posts: 374
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:08 pm

Re: I am Lord, God, and Master of the Federal Rules of Evidence

Postby sophie316 » Tue Dec 14, 2010 10:51 pm

Was the answer to every question on the exam 'hearsay'?

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: I am Lord, God, and Master of the Federal Rules of Evidence

Postby Renzo » Tue Dec 14, 2010 10:52 pm

sophie316 wrote:Was the answer to every question on the exam 'hearsay'?

Nah, it was "hearsay, irrelevant, no basis for knowledge, and confrontation clause problem."

sophie316
Posts: 374
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:08 pm

Re: I am Lord, God, and Master of the Federal Rules of Evidence

Postby sophie316 » Tue Dec 14, 2010 10:57 pm

Renzo wrote:
sophie316 wrote:Was the answer to every question on the exam 'hearsay'?

Nah, it was "hearsay, irrelevant, no basis for knowledge, and confrontation clause problem."


Ha actually you have no idea how much better that made me feel. (I am assuming I took the same test as you today)

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: I am Lord, God, and Master of the Federal Rules of Evidence

Postby Renzo » Tue Dec 14, 2010 10:59 pm

sophie316 wrote:
Renzo wrote:
sophie316 wrote:Was the answer to every question on the exam 'hearsay'?

Nah, it was "hearsay, irrelevant, no basis for knowledge, and confrontation clause problem."


Ha actually you have no idea how much better that made me feel. (I am assuming I took the same test as you today)

Well, then welcome, my fellow Lady and Master of the FRE.

sophie316
Posts: 374
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:08 pm

Re: I am Lord, God, and Master of the Federal Rules of Evidence

Postby sophie316 » Tue Dec 14, 2010 11:04 pm

Renzo wrote:Well, then welcome, my fellow Lady and Master of the FRE.


Ha well given that I spent the evening looking at the past grade distributions for the class and pondering how likely it is that 5 people were more poorly prepared than I was, I would not class myself as 'master'. Maybe squire.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: I am Lord, God, and Master of the Federal Rules of Evidence

Postby Renzo » Tue Dec 14, 2010 11:11 pm

sophie316 wrote:
Renzo wrote:Well, then welcome, my fellow Lady and Master of the FRE.


Ha well given that I spent the evening looking at the past grade distributions for the class and pondering how likely it is that 5 people were more poorly prepared than I was, I would not class myself as 'master'. Maybe squire.

No, I already accounted for that; that's why I dropped the "God" from the title.

User avatar
joobacca
Posts: 282
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:49 am

Re: I am Lord, God, and Master of the Federal Rules of Evidence

Postby joobacca » Tue Dec 14, 2010 11:27 pm

thanks guys, very helpful stuff.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 10 guests