Rules of Evidence/Objections Cheat Sheet for Mock Trial Forum

[lawschoolftw]

Mock Trial this weekend. A 1L with no experience with FRE. Anyone have a quick reference cheat sheet I could use to learn, reference during trial.

Thanks!

[hasmith]

Seems like a pretty steep learning curve. If you really have no experience with the FRE, can you really expect to learn enough to be ready for a mock trial? You will have to fire off your objections pretty quickly, there is not enough time to reference a cheat sheet.

[BarbellDreams]

I got thrown to the wolves like this in undergrad and I honestly just read all the FRE 3 times over and then quizzed myself for an hour and did fine. There are always about 10-15 main objections you need to know and the rest is more advanced stuff that doesn't come up most of the time (though if you get caught not being able to answer one of these its rough.)

[savagedm]

I got thrown to the wolves like this in undergrad and I honestly just read all the FRE 3 times over and then quizzed myself for an hour and did fine. There are always about 10-15 main objections you need to know and the rest is more advanced stuff that doesn't come up most of the time (though if you get caught not being able to answer one of these its rough.)

Would you be able to list these main objections by chance? You don't have to explain them, that's easy to google, I am curious as to what I should be looking towards knowing down pat as well.

[BarbellDreams]

Off the top of my head you need to know all the 800's in terms of hearsay exceptions. I would also highly recommend learning all the 700's for witnesses, qualifying experts, 703 for hearsay used by experts, etc.

The main objections (off the top of my head obviously) are always:

Hearsay
Relevance
Lack of Foundation
Improper Opinion
More Prejudicial than Probitive
Speculation/ Question Calls for Speculation
Lack of Personal Knowledge (this you dont get as much because it gets tied into either speculation or foundation a lot)
Narrative (Dont worry about this, its not a very strong objection either way)
Leading
Improper Character Evidence
Cumulative (This objection turns into a pissing match half the time, not used that often though)

These are off the top of my head so I may have missed some big one, but it will get you started. There are some other fun objections like 406 and 608 (I won a bunch of points in mock trial a few years back by using 608 effectively, the judge actually had to read the rule because she had never heard of it), but those aren't terribly important for the basics. Good luck.

[npe]

The judge didn't know the rules on character impeachment? Was this an actual judge?

[BarbellDreams]

The judge didn't know the rules on character impeachment? Was this an actual judge?

It was an attorney, not a real judge, because it was mock trial. She asked me to summarize the rule, I did, she asked for me to bring her a copy of the rules of evidence so she can read the rule, I did, she sustained. I can't really replicate her facial expression through a computer screen when she read the rule but it was something like "Damn, never seen this before but he's right".

[savagedm]

The judge didn't know the rules on character impeachment? Was this an actual judge?

It was an attorney, not a real judge, because it was mock trial. She asked me to summarize the rule, I did, she asked for me to bring her a copy of the rules of evidence so she can read the rule, I did, she sustained. I can't really replicate her facial expression through a computer screen when she read the rule but it was something like "Damn, never seen this before but he's right".

You may have just won her a case!

[npe]

The judge didn't know the rules on character impeachment? Was this an actual judge?

It was an attorney, not a real judge, because it was mock trial. She asked me to summarize the rule, I did, she asked for me to bring her a copy of the rules of evidence so she can read the rule, I did, she sustained. I can't really replicate her facial expression through a computer screen when she read the rule but it was something like "Damn, never seen this before but he's right".

That's awesome, congrats. Though slightly troubling if she's a trial attorney? Maybe it was just my Evidence prof., but I assumed controlling impeachment was pretty important.

[JOE!]

National competitions use FRE, but most attorneys don't practice in federal courts... that's probably why.