ITT: Evidence

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
Tom Joad
Posts: 4542
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:56 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby Tom Joad » Wed Dec 04, 2013 2:35 am

TTRansfer wrote:If essay, everything is 403.

If MC, you are on your own.

Also, don't forget authentication.

User avatar
Stringer6
Posts: 5866
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 12:45 am

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby Stringer6 » Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:12 am

brotherdarkness wrote:Whether a witness has personal knowledge is a 104(a) question, right?

ETA: Nevermind, apparently it's a 104(b) question.


Really? I thought 104(b) was just for conditional relevance.

User avatar
brotherdarkness
Posts: 3254
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:11 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby brotherdarkness » Wed Dec 04, 2013 2:47 pm

.
Last edited by brotherdarkness on Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Pleasye
Posts: 7970
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:22 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby Pleasye » Wed Dec 04, 2013 3:11 pm

I can't wait till Con Law is over so I can be all up in this thread.

User avatar
brotherdarkness
Posts: 3254
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:11 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby brotherdarkness » Wed Dec 04, 2013 3:16 pm

.
Last edited by brotherdarkness on Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Pleasye
Posts: 7970
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:22 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby Pleasye » Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:48 pm

brotherdarkness wrote:
Pleasye wrote:I can't wait till Con Law is over so I can be all up in this thread.


I'm out of this thread tomorrow afternoon and never coming back. Fuck evidence. I object to this entire class on grounds of it being irrelevant. Corporate law 4 lyfe.

I love evidence (and want litigation so it's very relevant). Please come back to answer my questions though!

User avatar
stillwater
Posts: 3811
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:59 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby stillwater » Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:50 pm

Pleasye wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:
Pleasye wrote:I can't wait till Con Law is over so I can be all up in this thread.


I'm out of this thread tomorrow afternoon and never coming back. Fuck evidence. I object to this entire class on grounds of it being irrelevant. Corporate law 4 lyfe.

I love evidence (and want litigation so it's very relevant). Please come back to answer my questions though!


love and evidence in the same sentence leaves me confused and saddened.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22888
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:54 pm

(I love Evidence too. One of the only things from law school I use, and I use it ALL the time.)

User avatar
stillwater
Posts: 3811
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:59 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby stillwater » Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:55 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:(I love Evidence too. One of the only things from law school I use, and I use it ALL the time.)


No you don't.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22888
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:56 pm

stillwater wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:(I love Evidence too. One of the only things from law school I use, and I use it ALL the time.)


No you don't.

Well, it's better than PROPERTY.

User avatar
stillwater
Posts: 3811
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:59 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby stillwater » Wed Dec 04, 2013 5:01 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
stillwater wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:(I love Evidence too. One of the only things from law school I use, and I use it ALL the time.)


No you don't.

Well, it's better than PROPERTY.


:cry:

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22888
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed Dec 04, 2013 5:02 pm

:lol: all the more property success for you.

User avatar
brotherdarkness
Posts: 3254
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:11 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby brotherdarkness » Wed Dec 04, 2013 5:30 pm

.
Last edited by brotherdarkness on Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
brotherdarkness
Posts: 3254
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:11 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby brotherdarkness » Wed Dec 04, 2013 6:20 pm

.
Last edited by brotherdarkness on Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Blumpbeef
Posts: 3814
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby Blumpbeef » Wed Dec 04, 2013 8:09 pm

Is there a practical difference?

User avatar
Birdnals
Posts: 4576
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:26 am

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby Birdnals » Wed Dec 04, 2013 8:11 pm

Blumpbeef wrote:Is there a practical difference?

Between 104(a) and (b)? Yeah, in B you can't use inadmissible evidence, which is a pretty big hurdle.

User avatar
brotherdarkness
Posts: 3254
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:11 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby brotherdarkness » Wed Dec 04, 2013 8:16 pm

.
Last edited by brotherdarkness on Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Birdnals
Posts: 4576
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:26 am

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby Birdnals » Wed Dec 04, 2013 8:20 pm

brotherdarkness wrote:
Birdnals wrote:
Blumpbeef wrote:Is there a practical difference?

Between 104(a) and (b)? Yeah, in B you can't use inadmissible evidence, which is a pretty big hurdle.


104(a) means the judge decides and the standard is preponderance of the evidence. Judge isn't bound by the rules, except privilege, in making a determination.

104(b) means the evidence goes to the jury so long as the judge thinks there's enough for a reasonable jury to find something. Judge can only use otherwise admissible evidence.

Is that right?


Sounds right, but I have been in full out employment law mode the last week so I'm not certain. I know for sure 104(a) allows everything but privilege, and even privilege can be done in camera. And I know 104(b) can only use admissible evidence. I don't remember off the top of my head the standard of proof for each, but that sounds right.

User avatar
Blumpbeef
Posts: 3814
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby Blumpbeef » Wed Dec 04, 2013 9:27 pm

Stringer6 wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:Whether a witness has personal knowledge is a 104(a) question, right?

ETA: Nevermind, apparently it's a 104(b) question.


Really? I thought 104(b) was just for conditional relevance.


So my supp says that whether a witness has personal knowledge is a 104(a) question with a "sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude" standard.

That makes sense to me, and it is pretty clear in the language of the rule itself that foundational questions as to witnesses are factual questions for the judge. The jury might conclude that they lacked personal knowledge at trial, but the testimony is not inadmissable on a preponderance of the evidence standard.

Can you explain why you think it is 104(b)?


ETA: I misread it. nm.

User avatar
Blumpbeef
Posts: 3814
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby Blumpbeef » Wed Dec 04, 2013 11:25 pm

So the line in 104(a) referring to "whether a witness is qualified" is only with regards to expert witnesses, right? Whether lay witnesses have personal knowledge is 104(b)? And "whether evidence is admissible" is referring to hearsay questions?

User avatar
Stringer6
Posts: 5866
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 12:45 am

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby Stringer6 » Wed Dec 04, 2013 11:29 pm

LOL I just got destroyed by my evidence exam

User avatar
brotherdarkness
Posts: 3254
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:11 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby brotherdarkness » Wed Dec 04, 2013 11:30 pm

.
Last edited by brotherdarkness on Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

odoylerulez
Posts: 227
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 6:39 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby odoylerulez » Wed Dec 04, 2013 11:34 pm

less than ~36 hours until my evidence final.

I started the heavy studying for it yesterday. I started off knowing nothing.

I now feel like I know even less than that.


fuck

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

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby bjsesq » Wed Dec 04, 2013 11:36 pm

odoylerulez wrote:less than ~36 hours until my evidence final.

I started the heavy studying for it yesterday. I started off knowing nothing.

I now feel like I know even less than that.


fuck


This is a good thing. When you really start knowing the shit, you realize how in depth it gets. You should feel concerned if you feel like you have evidence down pat. Not sure anybody does.

User avatar
brotherdarkness
Posts: 3254
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:11 pm

Re: ITT: Evidence

Postby brotherdarkness » Wed Dec 04, 2013 11:39 pm

.
Last edited by brotherdarkness on Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: joman8390 and 13 guests