Top Law Schools

joobacca wrote:what's the deal with prior statements? i got an exam tomorrow and i've been playing mlb the show non stop...

is it one set of rules that governs this crap? that is, one set of rules control how prior statements work against a witness and declarant or are there separate rules dealing with witnesses and with declarants of hearsay

BunkMoreland wrote:

joobacca wrote:what's the deal with prior statements? i got an exam tomorrow and i've been playing mlb the show non stop...

is it one set of rules that governs this crap? that is, one set of rules control how prior statements work against a witness and declarant or are there separate rules dealing with witnesses and with declarants of hearsay

You can use prior inconsistent statements for impeaching a witness, and some of those statements can also be used as substantive evidence if they fit into 801(d) ("not hearsay").

Aqualibrium wrote:

BunkMoreland wrote:

joobacca wrote:what's the deal with prior statements? i got an exam tomorrow and i've been playing mlb the show non stop...

is it one set of rules that governs this crap? that is, one set of rules control how prior statements work against a witness and declarant or are there separate rules dealing with witnesses and with declarants of hearsay

You can use prior inconsistent statements for impeaching a witness, and some of those statements can also be used as substantive evidence if they fit into 801(d) ("not hearsay").

What rule allows that? Does the prior inconsistent statement have to be a sworn one?

BunkMoreland wrote:

Aqualibrium wrote:

BunkMoreland wrote:

joobacca wrote:what's the deal with prior statements? i got an exam tomorrow and i've been playing mlb the show non stop...

is it one set of rules that governs this crap? that is, one set of rules control how prior statements work against a witness and declarant or are there separate rules dealing with witnesses and with declarants of hearsay

You can use prior inconsistent statements for impeaching a witness, and some of those statements can also be used as substantive evidence if they fit into 801(d) ("not hearsay").

What rule allows that? Does the prior inconsistent statement have to be a sworn one?

FRE 613; no

Aqualibrium wrote:

BunkMoreland wrote:

Aqualibrium wrote:

BunkMoreland wrote:what's the deal with prior statements? i got an exam tomorrow and i've been playing mlb the show non stop...

is it one set of rules that governs this crap? that is, one set of rules control how prior statements work against a witness and declarant or are there separate rules dealing with witnesses and with declarants of hearsay

You can use prior inconsistent statements for impeaching a witness, and some of those statements can also be used as substantive evidence if they fit into 801(d) ("not hearsay").

What rule allows that? Does the prior inconsistent statement have to be a sworn one?

FRE 613; no

uwb09 wrote:which supplement should I pick up this summer in order to prepare for Evidence next fall?

Aqualibrium wrote:What, if anything, can a juror be called to testify about?

What's a testimonial statement?

I called 911 and reported a crime, but am not available to testify at trial; can my 911 recording be admitted as evidence?

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?

A prosecutor wants to introduce a police report as evidence against the defendant. The defense objects on the basis of hearsay. What result?

I can go on and on if you'd like...One trial competition and two evidence courses later, I think I have a pretty good handle on this stuff.

Renzo wrote:Bring me your evidentiary problems, and I shall destroy them with my fiery wrath.



Also, check back tomorrow and see if I still feel this way after my final

Aqualibrium wrote:What, if anything, can a juror be called to testify about?

Nothing directly related to the matter before the jury upon which they sit. Under Tanner you can't use juror testimony to impeach a verdict based on mental/physical incapacity, or anything internal to deliberations. This has even been extended in the circuits to allegations of racial bias in deliberations.

What's a testimonial statement?

Under Davis v. Washington, you look to the primary purpose of the declarant in making the statement. Statements, for example, intended to elicit help in an ongoing emergency are non-testimonial, while a statement reasonably understood by the speaker as being used to report a past crime (even if not directly to the police/prosecutor) is testimonial.

I called 911 and reported a crime, but am not available to testify at trial; can my 911 recording be admitted as evidence?

First, if the defendant is introducing it, it's easy-peasy. It comes in under 803(8) against the government, it's self-authenticating, and it's relevant if it's exculpatory.

Otherwise, it's going to be a lot of work. The first problem is relevance. If you can't testify, there will be a serious problem proving basis for knowledge; hopefully you described enough details in the call to prove by a preponderance that you were actually there and have relevant knowledge. If you used your cell phone and we can prove that, or if someone else saw you call from the scene, that would help.

Then we'll need to authenticate the tape. SInce you're not available, we'll need the testimony either of the 911 operator who answered the call or of a technician who can say the tape is what it purports to be.

Then there is the hearsay problem, but it's possible the call was an excited utterance, and thus definitionally not hearsay. In some circuits we need extrinsic evidence of the exciting event, however, in which case we might be boned. If it's an excited utterance, it's probably not "testimonial" so there's no Crawford problem, but this could go either way depending on the circumstance of the call, and proving it may be really tough--I hope you sound terrified on the tape.


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?

Under 404(a), past conduct is not admissible to prove conduct in the current matter, so there's no relevance to show that the steps were generally safe. It might, however, be relevant to notice, and thus to proving an element of the tort. Therefore the relevance of such evidence would depend on the exact theory advanced by the plaintiff, and how they intend to demonstrate notice of the dangerous condition.

A prosecutor wants to introduce a police report as evidence against the defendant. The defense objects on the basis of hearsay. What result?

Sustained, on the information give. Definitely a Confrontation Clause problem, and it can't come in under any hearsay exceptions (it's not coming in as a public record against a criminal defendant). If the declarant of the report is testifying, that might change things under facts not given here.

I can go on and on if you'd like...One trial competition and two evidence courses later, I think I have a pretty good handle on this stuff.

Well, am I ready for my test?

vamedic03 wrote:

Renzo wrote:Bring me your evidentiary problems, and I shall destroy them with my fiery wrath.



Also, check back tomorrow and see if I still feel this way after my final

Is there any point to having a hearsay rule if we allow FRE 807 to cover near misses?

Borhas wrote:what's the FRE position on god's existence

savagedm wrote:My Lord, would it be permissible if thou's most humble servant presented at a trial before your holy divinity, facts which pertain to certain character traits possessed by a heathen prior to an offense against thee?

Renzo wrote:

savagedm wrote:My Lord, would it be permissible if thou's most humble servant presented at a trial before your holy divinity, facts which pertain to certain character traits possessed by a heathen prior to an offense against thee?

You might enquire of said heathen on cross examination, but thou shalt take the heathens answers as they lay, and shall not waste the courts time in proving collateral contradicting facts.

savagedm wrote:

Renzo wrote:

savagedm wrote:My Lord, would it be permissible if thou's most humble servant presented at a trial before your holy divinity, facts which pertain to certain character traits possessed by a heathen prior to an offense against thee?

You might enquire of said heathen on cross examination, but thou shalt take the heathens answers as they lay, and shall not waste the courts time in proving collateral contradicting facts.

I surmised as much my Lord. However, is it not true that we need not look to any of their testimony, as they are heathens and not capable of uttering a word of truth? I know that the only proper outcome is to slay them where they stand in thine name, lest their souls burn in the fiery pits of Hell for all eternity, but must we extract from them the required testimonie before we commence with the purging?

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?