Evidence Question

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
Aqualibrium
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:57 am

Evidence Question

Postby Aqualibrium » Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:54 pm

I know that in a trial you can't ask one witness about the testimony of another witness. What case or rule says that?

StudentAthlete
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:48 am

Re: Evidence Question

Postby StudentAthlete » Tue Jan 25, 2011 7:12 pm

Hearsay. seriously?

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: Evidence Question

Postby vamedic03 » Tue Jan 25, 2011 7:27 pm

Aqualibrium wrote:I know that in a trial you can't ask one witness about the testimony of another witness. What case or rule says that?


I don't recall the specific rules; however, it falls outside the scope of a permissible opinion testimony as reliability is reserved for the trier of fact and it falls outside of permissible testimony for attacking the witness. You can ask about their character for truthfulness, but you can't ask for an evaluation of their actual testimony.

Anonymous Loser
Posts: 568
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 11:17 am

Re: Evidence Question

Postby Anonymous Loser » Tue Jan 25, 2011 7:33 pm

FRE 701 is the lay opinion rule.

User avatar
bjsesq
TLS Poet Laureate
Posts: 13383
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:02 am

Re: Evidence Question

Postby bjsesq » Tue Jan 25, 2011 7:36 pm

Aqualibrium wrote:I know that in a trial you can't ask one witness about the testimony of another witness. What case or rule says that?

Generally it can't be commented on because the witness should have been sequestered per 615. If you are asking for a witness to comment on the credibility of another, this would be allowed under 608 if it goes to character for truthfulness. But as far as inability to comment on claims raised by other witnesses-not sure what you talking about. 701 does not necessarily exclude such testimony.

User avatar
traehekat
Posts: 3195
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:00 pm

Re: Evidence Question

Postby traehekat » Tue Jan 25, 2011 8:15 pm

Yeah, this confirms that I am not understanding anything in Evidence.

User avatar
bjsesq
TLS Poet Laureate
Posts: 13383
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:02 am

Re: Evidence Question

Postby bjsesq » Tue Jan 25, 2011 8:22 pm

traehekat wrote:Yeah, this confirms that I am not understanding anything in Evidence.

Semester's young, broheim. Give yourself time.

Anonymous Loser
Posts: 568
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 11:17 am

Re: Evidence Question

Postby Anonymous Loser » Tue Jan 25, 2011 8:25 pm

bjsesq wrote:But as far as inability to comment on claims raised by other witnesses-not sure what you talking about. 701 does not necessarily exclude such testimony.


I'm having a hard time imagining how that scenario is going to be anything but a lay opinion. Can you provide an example of a permissible question to the second witness?

User avatar
bjsesq
TLS Poet Laureate
Posts: 13383
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:02 am

Re: Evidence Question

Postby bjsesq » Tue Jan 25, 2011 8:31 pm

Anonymous Loser wrote:
bjsesq wrote:But as far as inability to comment on claims raised by other witnesses-not sure what you talking about. 701 does not necessarily exclude such testimony.


I'm having a hard time imagining how that scenario is going to be anything but a lay opinion. Can you provide an example of a permissible question to the second witness?

I guess it would be. The scenario I was thinking about was a lay witness who hadn't been sequestered being used to impeach the testimony of another lay witness. Witness X said _____ on the stand, but that isn't what I saw, I saw _________. It's a rationally based perception helpful to a determination of fact at issue and not based on specialized knowledge. It is a commentary on the testimony of another witness. Perhaps I approached the question all wrong.

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: Evidence Question

Postby vamedic03 » Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:20 pm

bjsesq wrote:
Anonymous Loser wrote:
bjsesq wrote:But as far as inability to comment on claims raised by other witnesses-not sure what you talking about. 701 does not necessarily exclude such testimony.


I'm having a hard time imagining how that scenario is going to be anything but a lay opinion. Can you provide an example of a permissible question to the second witness?

I guess it would be. The scenario I was thinking about was a lay witness who hadn't been sequestered being used to impeach the testimony of another lay witness. Witness X said _____ on the stand, but that isn't what I saw, I saw _________. It's a rationally based perception helpful to a determination of fact at issue and not based on specialized knowledge. It is a commentary on the testimony of another witness. Perhaps I approached the question all wrong.


That's not going to be permissible. Each witness could testify as to what they witnessed, but the evaluation of credibility will be left to the finder of fact.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests