CHAP RESUMED: THE RULE EXCLUDING HEARSAY – WHAT IS HEARSAY EVIDENCE?

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Rules of Evidence and Objections
Advertisements

CHAP. 4, part 1 of 3: DEFINITIONAL EXCEPTIONS TO THE MEANING OF HEARSAY P. JANICKE 2012.
CVLS Hearsay Refresher Who Cares About Hearsay? A Four-Step Hearsay Formula Hearsay Exceptions Questions.
CHAP. 13: AUTHENTICATION P. JANICKE Chap Authentication2 AUTHENTICATION A SUBSET OF RELEVANCE AUTHENTICATION EVIDENCE IS –NEEDED BEFORE DOCUMENTS.
Common Trial Procedures United States. Opening Statements.
PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS FRE 801(d) Non Hearsay by definition Rule 801(d)(1) Prior Statement by Witness is not hearsay If declarant testifies and.
CHAP. 8: IMPEACHMENT P. JANICKE Chap Impeachment2 DEFINITION AND METHODS IMPEACHMENT IS THE PROCESS OF ATTEMPTING TO WEAKEN THE PERCEIVED.
CHAP. 3 : INTRODUCTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE P. JANICKE 2011.
The Roles of Judge and Jury Court controls legal rulings in the trial Court controls legal rulings in the trial Jury decides factual issues Jury decides.
CHAP RESUMED: THE RULE EXCLUDING HEARSAY – WHAT IS HEARSAY EVIDENCE? P. JANICKE 2014.
Hearsay Rule Lecture 6, 2014.
CHAP RESUMED: THE RULE EXCLUDING HEARSAY – WHAT IS HEARSAY EVIDENCE? P. JANICKE 2012.
OBJECTIONS IN COURT. WHAT ARE THEY? An attorney can object any time she or he thinks the opposing attorney is violating the rules of evidence. The attorney.
Advanced Civil Litigation Class 9Slide 1 Advantages of a Deposition You can ask specific follow-up questions based on the answers you get You can ask specific.
Basic Evidence and Trial Procedure. Opening Statement  Preview the evidence “The evidence will show”  Introduce theme  Briefly describe the issues,
CHAP. 3 : INTRODUCTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE P. JANICKE 2008.
THE TRIAL IN CANADIAN COURTS – Part 3 RULES AND TYPES OF EVIDENCE LAW 12 MUNDY
CHAP RESUMED: THE RULE EXCLUDING HEARSAY – WHAT IS HEARSAY EVIDENCE? P. JANICKE 2008.
CHAP RESUMED: THE RULE EXCLUDING HEARSAY – WHAT IS HEARSAY EVIDENCE? P. JANICKE 2011.
CHAP. 8: IMPEACHMENT of WITNESSES
CHAP. 14: BEST EVIDENCE RULE Prof. JANICKE Chap Best Ev. Rule2 APPLIES ONLY TO: WRITINGS PHOTOGRAPHS RECORDINGS.
CHAP. 8: IMPEACHMENT P. JANICKE Chap Impeachment2 DEFINITION AND METHODS IMPEACHMENT IS THE PROCESS OF ATTEMPTING TO WEAKEN THE PERCEIVED.
CHAP. 14: BEST EVIDENCE RULE Prof. JANICKE Chap Best Ev. Rule2 APPLIES ONLY TO: WRITINGS PHOTOGRAPHS RECORDINGS.
CHAP RESUMED: THE RULE EXCLUDING HEARSAY – WHAT IS HEARSAY EVIDENCE? Prof. JANICKE 2015.
CHAPTER 7: Emond Montgomery Publications 1 Direct Examination of Witnesses.
2:05 sec Today you will be learning about how to conduct and participate in a mock trial. You will become familiar with some basic courtroom procedures.
CHAP. 3 : INTRODUCTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
Direct Examination Direct is when you tell your side of the story
PRE-SUIT CONSIDERATIONS
CHAP. 7 : DIRECT AND CROSS REVISITED
ESSENTIAL QUESTION Why does conflict develop?
CHAP. 14: BEST EVIDENCE RULE
Introduction to Cross Examination, Impeachment, and Hearsay
CHAP RESUMED: THE RULE EXCLUDING HEARSAY – WHAT IS HEARSAY EVIDENCE?
Criminal Evidence Marjie Britz Chapter Ten: Hearsay
The basics of every objection allowed in a Mock Trial.
Hearsay Hector Brolo Evidence, Law 16 Spring 2017.
The basics of every objection allowed in the Mock Trial universe.
CHAP. 7 : DIRECT AND CROSS REVISITED
CHAP. 3 : INTRODUCTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
CHAP. 3 : INTRODUCTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
AGENDA Brief Lecture on Chapters courtroom evidence and jury selections and juries Film, 12 angry men Written exercise
CHAP. 14: BEST EVIDENCE RULE
CHAP. 13: AUTHENTICATION Prof. JANICKE 2018.
CHAP. 14: BEST EVIDENCE RULE
CHAP. 4, part 1 of 3: DEFINITIONAL EXCEPTIONS TO THE MEANING OF HEARSAY Prof. JANICKE 2018.
CHAP. 4, part 1 of 3: DEFINITIONAL EXCEPTIONS TO THE MEANING OF HEARSAY Prof. JANICKE 2016.
HEARSAY DEFINITIONS [RULE 801, PARED DOWN].
OBJECTIONS.
How Witnesses are Examined
CHAP. 3 : INTRODUCTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
CHAP RESUMED: THE RULE EXCLUDING HEARSAY – WHAT IS HEARSAY EVIDENCE?
Witnesses’ Roles in a Case
CHAP. 13: AUTHENTICATION Prof. JANICKE 2016.
CHAP. 4, part 1 of 2: DEFINITIONAL EXCEPTIONS TO THE MEANING OF HEARSAY P. JANICKE 2011.
CHAP. 8: IMPEACHMENT P. JANICKE 2010.
CHAP. 3 : INTRODUCTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
THE TRIAL IN CANADIAN COURTS – Part 3
Rules of Evidence and Objections
CHAP. 3 : INTRODUCTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
CHAP. 4, part 1 of 3: DEFINITIONAL EXCEPTIONS TO THE MEANING OF HEARSAY Prof. JANICKE 2015.
CHAP. 13: AUTHENTICATION P. JANICKE 2010.
CHAP. 3 : INTRODUCTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE
CHAP. 7 : DIRECT AND CROSS REVISITED
CHAPTER 4, PARTS D-H RULE 804: OUT-OF-COURT DECLARATIONS BY PERSONS WHO ARE NOW “UNAVAILABLE” Prof. Janicke 2019.
CHAP. 4, part A: DEFINITIONAL EXCEPTIONS TO THE MEANING OF HEARSAY
CHAP. 13: AUTHENTICATION Prof. JANICKE 2019.
CHAP. 14: BEST EVIDENCE RULE
Business Law Final Exam
CHAP. 14: BEST EVIDENCE RULE
Presentation transcript:

CHAP. 3 -- RESUMED: THE RULE EXCLUDING HEARSAY – WHAT IS HEARSAY EVIDENCE? Prof. JANICKE 2018

BASIC OPERATION OF THE RULE EXCLUDING HEARSAY A WITNESS SHOULD TESTIFY WHAT SHE SAW A WITNESS SHOULD USUALLY NOT TESTIFY TO WHAT ANYONE SAID OR WROTE BEFORE TRIAL THIS INCLUDES WHAT THE WITNESS HERSELF SAID OR WROTE A DOCUMENT SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED TO TELL US WHAT HAPPENED 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence MEANING OF HEARSAY NO TESTIMONY IS ALLOWED CONCERNING ANY CONVERSATION THAT: CONTAINS A “STATEMENT” [RECITATION OF PRESENT OR PAST FACT] WAS MADE OUTSIDE THE PRESENT HEARING IS OFFERED TO HELP IN PROVING THAT THE FACT STATED IN THE STATEMENT IS TRUE 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence BIG EXCEPTION STATEMENTS MADE BY A PARTY, WHEN ELICITED BY THE OPPOSING SIDE’S LAWYER, FROM ANY WITNESS KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THE PARTY’S STATEMENT THESE ARE “NOT HEARSAY” R. 801(d) 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

FOR NON-PARTY UTTERANCES HEARSAY MEANS AN OUT-OF-COURT “STATEMENT” I.E., AN OUT-OF-COURT RECITATION OF A FACT [R 801 (a)] NOT ALL OUT-OF-COURT UTTERANCES CONTAIN “STATEMENTS”: PROMISES (“YOU’LL LIKE IT”) DON’T COMMANDS (“GET OUT OF HERE”) DON’T 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

EXAMPLES OF OUT-OF-COURT “STATEMENTS” “IT’S SUNNY HERE” RECITES A FACT “IT RAINED YESTERDAY” RECITES A FACT “I LOVE YOU” RECITES A FACT THESE ARE POTENTIALLY HEARSAY IF A WITNESS LATER TESTIFIES TO WHAT WAS SAID 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence MOST DOCUMENTS ARE LOADED WITH STATEMENTS, AND THUS PRESUMPTIVELY CONTAIN HEARSAY E.G.: MEMO THAT SAYS: “WE GOT SOME FLOODING” E.G.: LETTER THAT SAYS: “YOU AND I MET LAST MONTH ON THE SUBJECT OF A MERGER” ALL DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE THOUGHT OF AS PRESUMPTIVELY CONTAINING STATEMENTS, AND THEREFORE LIKELY INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY MAIN EXCEPTIONS: OTHER SIDE’S WRITINGS OPERATIVE FACT DOCUMENTS (CONTRACT; LEASE; WILL) 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence NOTE: THE SAME FACTS CAN AND SHOULD BE TESTIFIED TO BY A LIVE WITNESS WITH KNOWLEDGE WITNESS CAN TESTIFY “WE GOT SOME FLOODING,” NOT: “HE SAID WE GOT SOME FLOODING” WITNESS CAN TESTIFY “WE MET ON THE SUBJECT OF A MERGER,” NOT :THE MEMO STATED WE MET ON THE SUBJECT OF A MERGER” 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE HEARSAY RULE IT’S THE MANNER OF PROVING A FACT THAT IS BLOCKED BY THE HEARSAY RULE, NOT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE FACT WE WANT TO HEAR IT LIVE, AND SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

RULE 802 SAYS OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS USUALLY CANNOT BE TESTIFIED TO NOR CAN ANY DOCUMENT CONTAINING A STATEMENT OF FACT BE INTRODUCED, GENERALLY BUT: SUCH TESTIMONY OR DOCUMENT MIGHT FIT UNDER A HEARSAY EXCEPTION, AND CAN THEN BE INTRODUCED 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

RULE 802 – “THE RULE AGAINST HEARSAY” HEARSAY EVIDENCE [WHAT A NON-PARTY STATED OUT OF COURT] IS USUALLY INADMISSIBLE TO PROVE FACTS BUT FIRST-HAND TESTIMONY OF THE FACTS MAY WELL BE ADMISSIBLE 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

WHEN IS OUT-OF-COURT CONDUCT A “STATEMENT”? CONDUCT IS REGARDED AS A STATEMENT FOR HEARSAY PURPOSES ONLY IF WHEN ACTOR’S PRIMARY PURPOSE WAS DIRECTLY TO NARRATE (RECITE) FACTS [R 801 (a)] >>> 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence THE VAST MAJORITY OF HUMAN CONDUCT (99%) IS NOT DONE FOR THIS PURPOSE IT IS TO GET ON WITH LIFE! THEREFORE, NO STATEMENT AND NO HEARSAY IN LATER TESTIMONY TO THE CONDUCT 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence EXAMPLES OF THE 1% CONDUCT THAT IS A STATEMENT: NOD OR SHAKE OF HEAD FOR YES OR NO POINTING TO IDENTIFY A PERSON, PLACE, OR THING REENACTMENTS 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

EXAMPLE OF CONDUCT THAT IS NOT A STATEMENT ACTION ON MARINE INSURANCE POLICY MAIN ISSUE: SEAWORTHINESS OF VESSEL LATER LOST AT SEA EVIDENCE: TESTIMONY THAT AN EXPERIENCED CAPTAIN INSPECTED THOROUGHLY, THEN TOOK HIS FAMILY ABOARD AND SET SAIL 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

FURTHER EXAMPLE OF CONDUCT THAT IS NOT A STATEMENT WILL PROBATE MAIN ISSUE: TESTATOR’S SANITY EVIDENCE: TESTIMONY THAT LOCALS SOMETIMES LAUGHED AT HIM, CHECKED UP ON HIM, WOULD NOT ENGAGE HIM IN ANY SERIOUS ENTERPRISE 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence THESE ACTORS WERE NOT INTENDING TO NARRATE! WE MAY SEE THEIR CONDUCT AS FULL OF FACTUAL MEANING; BUT THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS A MAIN INTENT TO NARRATE 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

FURTHER EXAMPLES OF CONDUCT THAT IS NOT A STATEMENT (NON-NARRATIVE) PROMOTING A LIEUTENANT TO CAPTAIN GIVING AN EMPLOYEE A BONUS PUTTING PATIENT IN I.C.U. THROWING WINE IN HIS FACE, AND LEAVING THE RESTAURANT [THIS ONE MAY BE ARGUABLE. IS HER MAIN INTENT TO NARRATE??] 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

CAN YOU THINK OF ANY OTHER EXAMPLE OF CONDUCT THAT IS A “STATEMENT”? OTHER THAN SIGNING, NODDING HEAD, POINTING, REENACTMENTS IT HAS TO BE AN ACTION THAT IS INTENDED TO DIRECTLY STATE A FACT ---- eye contact + [H, C, DoKn, CaSe/CaHe, OK] 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

WORDS THAT GIVE MEANING TO CONDUCT ARE NOT STATEMENTS EXAMPLE: HANDING OVER CASH, AND SAYING “THIS IS FOR THE JULY RENT” EXAMPLE: HANDING CAR KEYS, AND SAYING “IT’S IN THE GARAGE” 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence THEREFORE, A WITNESS CAN TESTIFY TO THE ACTOR’S CONDUCT AND THE ACTOR’S WORDS NO STATEMENT = NO HEARSAY 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence 2 RULES OF THUMB MIXED WORDS AND CONDUCT: TREAT AS CONDUCT THEN, IF YOU CAN’T DECIDE ACTOR’S INTENTION (WAS SHE MAINLY INTENDING TO NARRATE?): TREAT AS A NON-STATEMENT 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

HANDLING VERY SHORT SETS OF WORDS “CORONA” ON BEER MUG “PORSCHE” ON CAR “PLAZA CLUB RESTAURANT” LAUNDRY MARK “JAN” “UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON” ON ENTRANCEWAY THESE ARE REGARDED AS MERE MARKERS, NOT STATEMENTS THEREFORE CANNOT BE HEARSAY 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence PROBLEMS/CASES 3A 3B [CAIN] CHECK 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

“OFFERED TO PROVE THE TRUTH OF THE STATEMENT” SOME OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS ARE ELICITED AT TRIAL FOR OTHER REASONS, AND ARE THEREFORE NOT HEARSAY PER R. 802 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

EXAMPLES OF USING STATEMENTS FOR OTHER PURPOSES IMPEACHING A WITNESS E.G.: PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT DOES NOT COME IN FOR ITS TRUTH 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence WORDS THAT ARE THEMSELVES A NECESSARY ELEMENT OF THE CASE E.G.: FALSE OFFICIAL STATEMENT E.G.: OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE IN CONTRACT CASE E.G.: WARRANTIES IN BREACH OF WARRANTY CASE SOMETIMES CALLED “RES GESTAE” SOMETIMES CALLED WORDS THAT ARE AN “OPERATIVE FACT” M-K CALL THIS A “VERBAL ACT” 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence PROVING THE LISTENER’S STATE OF MIND THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE CASE OR DEFENSE, i.e., WHERE STATE OF MIND MATTERS TESTIMONY THAT X SAID TO D: “I HAVE A GUN THAT IS POINTED AT YOU” SELF-DEFENSE REQUIRES PROOF OF ACTOR’S STATE OF MIND TRUTH OF THE STATEMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT TESTIMONY THAT X SAID TO D: “THESE T.V. SETS ARE STOLEN” IF THE TRIAL IS FOR RECEIVING, KNOWLEDGE IS AN ELEMENT CAVEAT: LIMITED OFFER WILL BE ENFORCED! 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence TESTIMONY THAT X SAID TO D: “THE BRAKES ON YOUR CAR ARE BAD” OFFERED TO SHOW D’S NEGLIGENCE IN DRIVING THE CAR NEGLIGENCE IS A STATE OF MIND CAN AN UNCONSCIOUS PERSON ACT “NEGLIGENTLY”? NO. 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence TESTIMONY THAT NON-PARTY X SAID TO PLAINTIFF: “THE BRAKES ON D’S CAR ARE BAD” OFFERED TO SHOW PLAINTIFF’S ASSUMPTION OF RISK IN RIDING IN D’S CAR ASSUMPTION OF RISK IS A STATE OF MIND CAN AN UNCONSCIOUS PERSON ASSUME A RISK WHILE UNCONSCIOUS? NO. 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence THE TWO KEYS: NO STATEMENT = NO HEARSAY NOT OFFERED TO ESTABLISH TRUTH OF THE STATEMENT = NOT HEARSAY 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence PROBLEMS/CASES 3C 3D [3E] 3F [3G] 3H (cont’d) 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence 3J PACELLI BETTS 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

THE HEARSAY QUIZ IN M-K [pp. 182-184] APPLY THE DEFINITIONAL EXCEPTIONS IN R801(d) IF APPLICABLE SOME LAWYERS START WITH 801(d) ANALYSIS, TO SAVE TIME IF YOU FIND IT IN 801(d), IT CAN’T BE HEARSAY NO WORRY ABOUT WHY IT’S OFFERED 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

SUGGESTED MENTAL SEQUENCE CHECK 801(d) – NOT HEARSAY IS THE WIT. TESTIFYING ABOUT A STATEMENT? IS THE TEST. OFFERED TO PROVE THAT THE STMT. WAS TRUE? IF SO, THE TEST. IS BRINGING IN HEARSAY IS THERE AN APPLICABLE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE? 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence

Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence M-K HEARSAY QUIZ, Q&A ---- 2018 Chap. 3 -- Hearsay Evidence