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

[savagedm]

This thread is so full of win potential.

[Renzo]

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.

[Big Shrimpin]

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

[Big Shrimpin]

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]

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.

[joobacca]

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]

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]

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

[Renzo]

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

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

[sophie316]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[joobacca]

thanks guys, very helpful stuff.