How confident do you feel? Forum

[happyhour1122]

Was the police officer considered an "expert" - no, not the right subject matter or something like that

This was hard... but then 5 yr experience of in the area and testifying on the subject...I said it was ok. Unless it was objected which wasnt.

Dog food can label question? SL or no? - LOL, what is that

Don't remember...facts

[cnk1220]

.

[YalteseFalcon]

Rape shield apply or not? None, of the answers really fit the exception?

Hmm. I remember this one. If I remember correctly, the one answer that spoke specifically to the rape shield law was a misstatement of law.

I don't recall the other answers, nor which I chose.

had nothing to do with rape shield law, it was something else.

It was with consent! She's just guilty because she's living with her bf!!!!

So the question was proper because it showed motive?

[Therealellewoods27]

She couldn't read, so she ate dog food, had an allergic reaction to an ingredient that wasn't listed. Brought an action under strict products liability.

[YalteseFalcon]

A police officer can be an expert on limited matters, narcotics are one of them.

This is true. I've heard officers testifying in motions to suppress for terry frisk identifications of contraband based on plain feel. The officer will say that in his X years of experience on the narcotics team, it was plainly apparent to him that he felt crack cocaine, etc. They have done this without being procedurally qualified as an expert

But does this extend to "signaling"?

[happyhour1122]

Rape shield apply or not? None, of the answers really fit the exception?

Hmm. I remember this one. If I remember correctly, the one answer that spoke specifically to the rape shield law was a misstatement of law.

I don't recall the other answers, nor which I chose.

had nothing to do with rape shield law, it was something else.

It was with consent! She's just guilty because she's living with her bf!!!!

So the question was proper because it showed motive?

Yes.
In civil victim's past sexual question = as long as it doesn't substantially prejudice

In criminal. Victim's past sexual question to show either consent or third party existence.

Was this question civil or criminal? @.@
Either way I chose it was ok to ask to show third party existed to her motive

[cnk1220]

Rape shield apply or not? None, of the answers really fit the exception?

Hmm. I remember this one. If I remember correctly, the one answer that spoke specifically to the rape shield law was a misstatement of law.

I don't recall the other answers, nor which I chose.

had nothing to do with rape shield law, it was something else.

It was with consent! She's just guilty because she's living with her bf!!!!

So the question was proper because it showed motive?

Yes.
In civil victim's past sexual question = as long as it doesn't substantially prejudice

In criminal. Victim's past sexual question to show either consent or third party existence.

Was this question civil or criminal? @.@
Either way I chose it was ok to ask to show third party existed to her motive

.

[happyhour1122]

Rape shield apply or not? None, of the answers really fit the exception?

Hmm. I remember this one. If I remember correctly, the one answer that spoke specifically to the rape shield law was a misstatement of law.

I don't recall the other answers, nor which I chose.

Speaking of bias
There was a question on that.




had nothing to do with rape shield law, it was something else.

It was with consent! She's just guilty because she's living with her bf!!!!

So the question was proper because it showed motive?

Yes.
In civil victim's past sexual question = as long as it doesn't substantially prejudice

In criminal. Victim's past sexual question to show either consent or third party existence.

Was this question civil or criminal? @.@
Either way I chose it was ok to ask to show third party existed to her motive

I chose something about showing her motive she didn't want her boyfriend to find out is what I thought- I know motive and bias are always available on cross exam Qs- think about it- you have to be able to show the jury what the person's incentives are for testifying a certain way.

Speaking of bias, there was a question on tgat.

[YalteseFalcon]

I think there may have been a couple bias questions.

One concerned dismissal for cause during voir dire. I answered that question incorrectly. I guess it was proper to dismiss the person with the same car due to potential for bias. This was not the answer I chose. I answered that the poor old-timer couldn't be dismissed for cause because of hard of hearing. Shame on me for that one.

The other one concerned a prior consistent statement made before the time the bias arose. Something about a plaintiff's witness of an automobile accident later being revealed to work for the plaintiff, but that the PCS was made before W began working for P.

[happyhour1122]

I think there may have been a couple bias questions.

One concerned dismissal for cause during voir dire. I answered that question incorrectly. I guess it was proper to dismiss the person with the same car due to potential for bias.

Didn't judge ask him if he could be fair on this? Either way I don't remeber what I chose lol

This was not the answer I chose. I answered that the poor old-timer couldn't be dismissed for cause because of hard of hearing. Shame on me for that one.

Omg..I don't remeber this.

The other one concerned a prior consistent statement made before the time the bias arose. Something about a plaintiff's witness of an automobile accident later being revealed to work for the plaintiff, but that the PCS was made before W began working for P.

Yes

[cnk1220]

.

[yankeeman86]

Rape shield apply or not? None, of the answers really fit the exception?

Hmm. I remember this one. If I remember correctly, the one answer that spoke specifically to the rape shield law was a misstatement of law.

I don't recall the other answers, nor which I chose.

had nothing to do with rape shield law, it was something else.

It was with consent! She's just guilty because she's living with her bf!!!!

So the question was proper because it showed motive?

(Shrug)

[yankeeman86]

A police officer can be an expert on limited matters, narcotics are one of them.

This is true. I've heard officers testifying in motions to suppress for terry frisk identifications of contraband based on plain feel. The officer will say that in his X years of experience on the narcotics team, it was plainly apparent to him that he felt crack cocaine, etc. They have done this without being procedurally qualified as an expert

But does this extend to "signaling"?

Not usre

[yankeeman86]

Rape shield apply or not? None, of the answers really fit the exception?

Hmm. I remember this one. If I remember correctly, the one answer that spoke specifically to the rape shield law was a misstatement of law.

I don't recall the other answers, nor which I chose.

had nothing to do with rape shield law, it was something else.

It was with consent! She's just guilty because she's living with her bf!!!!

So the question was proper because it showed motive?

Yes.
In civil victim's past sexual question = as long as it doesn't substantially prejudice

In criminal. Victim's past sexual question to show either consent or third party existence.

Was this question civil or criminal? @.@
Either way I chose it was ok to ask to show third party existed to her motive

agree

[yankeeman86]

Can you refresh with hearsay?

Investigator takes a video wants to admit it? Right to privacy was one of them don't remember what the others were or what I put ¿

Was the police officer considered an "expert"

Dog food can label question? SL or no?

Not sure

[yankeeman86]

I think there may have been a couple bias questions.

One concerned dismissal for cause during voir dire. I answered that question incorrectly. I guess it was proper to dismiss the person with the same car due to potential for bias. This was not the answer I chose. I answered that the poor old-timer couldn't be dismissed for cause because of hard of hearing. Shame on me for that one.

The other one concerned a prior consistent statement made before the time the bias arose. Something about a plaintiff's witness of an automobile accident later being revealed to work for the plaintiff, but that the PCS was made before W began working for P.

Yes to both. witness later told husband about the crash opens teh door to rebut on redirect - hypothetically speaking

[Aavni]

Can you refresh with hearsay?

Investigator takes a video wants to admit it? Right to privacy was one of them don't remember what the others were or what I put ¿

Was the police officer considered an "expert"

Dog food can label question? SL or no?

investigator can take video, it was in public of the woman going up the escalator in the mall

There's a question as to the relevance. I think I guessed that it is not relevant to the injury because it was shot a year after the accident.

[yankeeman86]

Can you refresh with hearsay?

Investigator takes a video wants to admit it? Right to privacy was one of them don't remember what the others were or what I put ¿

Was the police officer considered an "expert"

Dog food can label question? SL or no?

investigator can take video, it was in public of the woman going up the escalator in the mall

There's a question as to the relevance. I think I guessed that it is not relevant to the injury because it was shot a year after the accident.

Not sure

[ur_hero]

Actually, I believe it was relevant because she claimed to have suffered permanent injury to hwe leg, yet was walking fine on the escalator. Hence, possibly no permanent injury.

Can you refresh with hearsay?

Investigator takes a video wants to admit it? Right to privacy was one of them don't remember what the others were or what I put ¿

Was the police officer considered an "expert"

Dog food can label question? SL or no?

investigator can take video, it was in public of the woman going up the escalator in the mall

There's a question as to the relevance. I think I guessed that it is not relevant to the injury because it was shot a year after the accident.

it was relevant because it was taken right after the injury, not 1 year.

[yankeeman86]

Actually, I believe it was relevant because she claimed to have suffered permanent injury to hwe leg, yet was walking fine on the escalator. Hence, possibly no permanent injury.

Can you refresh with hearsay?

Investigator takes a video wants to admit it? Right to privacy was one of them don't remember what the others were or what I put ¿

Was the police officer considered an "expert"

Dog food can label question? SL or no?

investigator can take video, it was in public of the woman going up the escalator in the mall

There's a question as to the relevance. I think I guessed that it is not relevant to the injury because it was shot a year after the accident.

it was relevant because it was taken right after the injury, not 1 year.

Therefore video is admissible based on the above hypo?

[cnk1220]

.

[ur_hero]

Yup, same correct answer. Just different reasoning

Actually, I believe it was relevant because she claimed to have suffered permanent injury to hwe leg, yet was walking fine on the escalator. Hence, possibly no permanent injury.

Can you refresh with hearsay?

Investigator takes a video wants to admit it? Right to privacy was one of them don't remember what the others were or what I put ¿

Was the police officer considered an "expert"

Dog food can label question? SL or no?

investigator can take video, it was in public of the woman going up the escalator in the mall

There's a question as to the relevance. I think I guessed that it is not relevant to the injury because it was shot a year after the accident.

it was relevant because it was taken right after the injury, not 1 year.

Therefore video is admissible

[YalteseFalcon]

Alright, how about this one: goal of promoting religious tolerance. Morning prayer in public school of different religions. Right to not participate.

Allowed because secular purpose?
Not allowed because primary effect is to promote religion?
Don't remember the other two choices.

[cnk1220]

.

[cnk1220]

.