Torts Illustrated wrote:California evidence question:
In a criminal case in California, a defendant can introduce evidence of the victim's bad character using opinion, reputation, AND specific instances of conduct. (So, if I'm charged with homicide and claiming self-defense, I can introduce evidence showing that the victim kicked puppies in order to show that he was a violent guy.)
After this happens, the prosecution can introduce negative character evidence about the defendant. Can the prosecution's evidence be in the form of specific instances of conduct? Or only opinion and reputation?
In the same vein, if a defendant wants to introduce evidence of his own character as inconsistent with the crime charged, can that be in the form of specific instances of conduct? Or just opinion/reputation?
Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong since this is tomorrow's subject for me.
AFAIK, in CA only, you can only bring in whatever (including specific acts) only if it relates to that of moral turpitude. So lying, theft, any misconduct. I guess this would mean D cannot introduce good pertinent character because it would probably not be one of moral turpitude. BUT then I guess P could then rebut with specific acts of moral turpitude? OR does P have to match the type of evidence, e.g., opinion for opinion?
For your 3rd Q, whatever D/P introduces must be pertinent to the crime, so I don't think you can introduce that kind of evidence at all.
I thought I had con law down, and then I had a question about 1) executive orders preempting state law, and 2) if the law violates the 4th amendment. I didn't think they'd combine crim pro with conlaw.
Which administration is this from?
a male human wrote:I'm worried about con law because I'm no good at the federalism and congressional powers stuff. Like I just did 2008 July Q2, and I had no idea what a president could do in terms of giving executive orders. On a real question, I would have been toast.
It seems like the past few administrations have all been A1 individual rights, though. Hopefully it's that this time around because it's just SS or RBR.
Alternatively, google "site:calbar.ca.gov past exams executive order fourth amendment" or the like to find the relevant test file and sample answers.