Problems 3C & 4. Problem 3C Do Problem 3C Willy’s Baseball Bat Testimony Folks who hit others w/ bats are SML to be violent people 1 yr ago, D hit O.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

What is Science? Science refers to a method of learning about the natural world, as well as to the knowledge gained through that process. Scientific Inquiry.

Advertisements

TRIAL EVIDENCE.

Rule 411: Liability Insurance. Liability Insurance Carrying liability insurance –Note: Not other types of insurance Offered to prove –Negligence, or –Other.

Rule 801: The Basic Definition of Hearsay. Start with a fact of consequence Add an observer.

Use of Prior Statements, Depositions and Corollary Proceedings: Searing Impeachment and Effective Rehabilitation FITZPATRICK,

Prior Statements By Testifying Witnesses 801(d)(1)

Problem 1. Problem 1 - Is it relevant? Charles: “I would not have voted ‘Yes.’” Charles: “Alice told me that she would not have voted ‘Yes.’” Document:

Rule 412: The Rape Shield Rule. How does Rule 412(a) change Rule 404? Mercy Rule –R 412 prevents D from offering Victim propensity evidence. 404(b) –R.

Criminal Trial Adversarial System Trial Initiation

Criminal Evidence 6th Edition

Jackie Borcherding Assistant District Attorney Williamson County.

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.

 complete in natural growth or development, as plant and animal forms  fully developed in body or mind, as a person.

Problems 1C & 2C. I would have voted “No” if I had known. Charles.

Evidence Prof. William A. Woodruff Federal Criminal Practice Seminar Nov 2, 2012 Raleigh, NC © 2012.

Problem 3A – 3B (Rule 404 and the Criminal Case Exceptions)

Problems Problem 5 Holy Cow. It’s 5 Pounds of Cocaine Dan I borrowed the car from my neighbor. I didn’t know what was in the trunk.

Mock Trial Modified by Dennis Gerl from Evidence PPT by John Ed-Bishop

Problem 3 Rule (Pertinent Traits vs. Elements) (Underlying Logic of the Propensity Evidence Rules)

Prior Bad Acts An Introduction to 404(b). How can you use PBAs: If the PBA is being offered to prove character itself? If the PBA is being used to prove.

Expert Testimony. What’s the expert’s role FOC Proffered Evidence Evidentiary Hypothesis P thumb numb Thumb numbness makes it SML that spine was injured.

Tests for Relevance. Direct Evidence Test Proffered Evidence D shot V D Guilty of Murder Fact Legal Outcome Makes Fact SML Affects Legal Outcome I saw.

The “True” Exceptions and Dan the Dreadful Declarant.

Rules : Propensity Evidence in Certain Sex Cases.

Rule Admit Exclude 403 Balancing Rule 403 reflects a strong preference for admission.

Chamberlain. EvidenceFact Legal Result Burden of Production (Basic)

MGS 3040 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS GROUP B Kimberly Matt Shawn Ashley.

OPINION EVIDENCE. OPINION EVIDENCE FRE Evid. Code §§

Law December 9 Bellringer: Rules of Evidence – During direct examination, the prosecution asks Flo Pig “What had Curly Pig told you that the Wolf was yelling.

What is Science?. As a Group  Come up with a definition of what science is.

Sets Day 1 Part II.

Motion for Summary Judgment The Keys to Success. How does this work?  Summary judgments are governed by Rule 166(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Prosecuting Police Services Act Cases Adjudicators & Prosecution Course 2014 Ian D. Scott Lawyer Suite University Ave Toronto Ontario M5G 1Y8.

Think and Write Like a Designer to be a Better Analyzer and Creator of Design For Infographics & Graphs.

Trial advocacy workshop

Characters Justice System PlotQuotes Short Answer.

I Read It, But I Don’t Get It! Supplements to Chris Tovani’s Text Ms. Reid

Editing and the law. First Amendment rights provide that people may speak and write free of censorship from the federal government. “Congress shall make.

+ Rules & Types of Evidence. + Rules of Evidence During a trial, either the Crown or the defence may object to questions asked by the opposing attorney.

Closing Arguments Saving the Best for Last. Purpose of Closing Arguments This is your one chance to be an advocate. This is your one chance to be an advocate.

The Trial. I. Procedures A. Jury Selection 1. Impanel (select) a jury 2. Prosecutors and Defense lawyers pose questions to potential jurors (VOIR DIRE)

Presentation by Jim and Josh McGuire Permission granted for any education use in connection with MBA Mock Trial Program November 18, 2002 Pirated and modified.

Ralph Waldo Emerson “Nature”. Biography Introduction  Emerson claims that at that time society, in general, viewed God and nature through whose eyes?

Evidence and Expert Testimony. Expert Testimony  Two Types of Witnesses: Fact and Expert  Fact -- have personal knowledge of facts of case  Cannot.

Lesson Formula on p. 541 Suppose that in a binomial experiment with n trials the probability of success is p in each trial, and the probability.

CHAP. 8: IMPEACHMENT P. JANICKE Chap Impeachment2 DEFINITION AND METHODS IMPEACHMENT IS THE PROCESS OF ATTEMPTING TO WEAKEN THE PERCEIVED.

DO NOW 1. Get out necessary items. 2. Put away other items. 3. Write down your homework. 4. Do your comprehension handout.

How The Death of a Salesman uses the theme of Identity Crisis.

Mock Trial Team Strategies and Formalities. Opening Statements 3 minutes Objective – Acquaint court with the case and outline what you are going to prove.

RELEVANT OR IRRELEVANT THAT IS THE QUESTION. RELEVANCE OF AN ITEM MAY DERIVE FROM ITS: (1)Factual Connection to a Legal Element (the intent or act caused.

CJ227: Criminal Procedure Unit 6 Seminar Mary K Cronin.

Explicating Literature

Experts and Lay Witness

Start Figure 7.10 Trial by Jury, p. 183 End.

Skepticism David Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and John Pollock’s “Brain in a vat” Monday, September 19th.

WHAT IS EVIDENCE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES DOCUMENTS

Class ended with this question:

Skepticism David Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

The basics of every objection allowed in a Mock Trial.

The basics of every objection allowed in the Mock Trial universe.

"Seasoned" Superior Court Judges

By: The Mock Trial Class of 4B

How Witnesses are Examined

Who may impeach a Witness

"Seasoned" Superior Court Judges

Start Figure 7.10 Trial by Jury, p. 183 End.

Character Evidence Rules - In General

Objections How, when, why…...

Mock Trial Objections Part II.

Presentation transcript:

Problems 3C & 4

Problem 3C Do Problem 3C

Willy’s Baseball Bat Testimony Folks who hit others w/ bats are SML to be violent people 1 yr ago, D hit O with BB bat D killed V People who are violent are SML to kill Forbidden Character Propensity Inference Can’t Use Specific Acts Under 405 D is a violent person

Suppose O & V Were Brothers Folks who don’t like one brother are SML to not like the other. 1 yr ago, D hit O with BB bat D killed V People who dislike a person are SML to kill that person Forbidden Character Propensity Inference? What about 405’s limits on specific act testimony? D does not like V No Inference from Motive 405 doesn’t apply because this isn’t character evidence

Connecting Fact V was killed by being hit with a wrench Suppose D had hit V with Wrench If 2 acts are done in the same unusual way, it is SML that they were done by the same person. 1 yr ago, D hit O with wrench D killed V Forbidden Character Propensity Inference? No Inference re method not character

Problem 4 Do Problem 4

What Does Ted Need to Prove to Establish His Defense of Truth? Polly has no conscience. Polly is a killer. Polly chopped off Victor’s head. Polly did so casually. Each piece of evidence must be offered to prove one or more of these elements under a permissible evidentiary hypothesis. What does “killer” mean? P is someone who has killed in the past? P is a “killing sort of guy”?

I saw Polly chop off Melissa’s head. Walt Polly Beheaded Melissa Polly has no conscience. Polly is a killer. Polly chopped off Victor’s head. Polly did so casually.

Polly Has No Conscience Polly beheaded Melissa Polly has no conscience Forbidden Character Propensity Inference? No Evidentiary Hypothesis Required One who beheads is SML to have no conscience NoWhat about 405? Specific act OK since character = element Specific Act? Opinion? Reputation?

P is a Killer Polly beheaded Melissa Polly is a (KSG) Polly is a killer (KSG) Forbidden Character Propensity Inference? No Evidentiary Hypothesis Required One who beheads is SML to be a killer (KSG) NoWhat about 405? Specific act OK since character = element

Inferring P Beheaded V Polly beheaded Melissa Polly beheaded Victor Polly is a violent person Forbidden Character Propensity Inference? Violent folks are SML to behead others One who beheads is SML to be a violent person Yes. Barred by 404.

Connecting Fact Victor was beheaded by someone. Another Possible Inference If 2 acts are done in the same unusual way, it is SML that they were done by the same person. Polly beheaded Melissa Polly beheaded Victor Forbidden Character Propensity Inference? No Inference re method not character

Identity (E#3) 403 Balance for “P chopped off M’s Head” Probative Value P is a Killer (E#2) P has no conscience (E#1) Prejudicial Effects Propensity (E#3) Lock’m Up Trial Time & Confusion

P is a Killer (Meaning that P has Killed in the Past) Polly beheaded Melissa Polly is a (has killed in the past) Forbidden Character Propensity Inference? One who has beheaded has killed No. Inference about effect of physical act not about character.

Polly has no conscience Walt Polly has no conscience Polly has no conscience. Polly is a killer. Polly chopped off Victor’s head. Polly did so casually. Specific Act? Opinion? Reputation?

Inferring P Beheaded V P has no conscience P beheaded Victor People who have no conscience are SML to behead people Forbidden Character Propensity Inference? Yes: Barred by 404

Inferring P has no conscience P has no conscience No Evidentiary Hypothesis Required Forbidden Character Propensity Inference? No. OK under 404What about 405? OK 405 Permits Opinion Form

Inferring P is a killer P has no conscience P is a Killer (KSG) People who have no conscience are SML to also be KSGs Forbidden Character Propensity Inference? No. This is OK under 404. Inference from BCT to another BCT -- not BCT to conduct.

Inferring P is a killer P has no conscience P is a Killer (Killed in Past) People who have no conscience are SML to kill. Forbidden Character Propensity Inference? Yes. Barred by 404.

403 Balance for “P has no conscience” Probative Value P is a killer (KSG) (E#2) P has no conscience (E#1) Prejudicial Effects P killed V (E#3) Lock’m Up Trial Time & Confusion P is a Killer (Killed in Past) E#2

How is Winston’s Testimony Different? Reputation –Is this OK under 405 What about the inferences? –No conscience? –Killer (KSG) –Killer (KIP) –Beheaded Victor

Look at Waldo’s & Wendy’s Testimony Waldo’s testimony is the converse of whose testimony? Wendy’s testimony is the converse of whose testimony?