1. RELEVANT OR IRRELEVANT THAT IS THE QUESTION

2. RELEVANCE OF AN ITEM MAY DERIVE FROM ITS: (1)Factual Connection to a Legal Element (the intent or act caused the law to be broken). (2) Relationship to the Credibility of a Witness

3. EVIDENCE Direct: Stands on its own to prove a fact (e.g., testimony of an eyewitness). Circumstantial: Relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact (e.g., fingerprint).

4. PHYSICAL OBJECTS Help understanding of oral testimony

5. ROBBERY The taking of money or goods in the possession of another, from his or her person or immediate presence, by force or intimidation.

6. RULE 601 Every person is competent to be a witness unless these rules provide otherwise.

7. 1. Statement: A: I was really scared. I was afraid for my life. Is witness competent to know his own mental state? Yes, Rule 601. If so, is his mental state relevant? what material fact would his mental state prove as an element of the crime armed robbery? Victim’s fear becomes a material element of the crime of armed robbery.

8. 2. Statement: "A: Yeah, he said he had been doing armed robberies all his life, so I shouldn’t try anything." What is the relevance of this statement? Defendant: Rule 403: this statements is prejudicial. The jury will automatically think they are dealing with a criminal. What does it prove? Prosecution: this statement has the tendency to show witness’s ability to remember details. Is it more prejudicial than probative (see FRE 403). It can be more probative, show W’s fear. Would the judge exclude this statement because it is more prejudicial than probative? Probably yes. This statement has little probative value and is highly prejudicial. Can you use evidence of his character to do previous robberies to prove that he did this one. FRE 404(b): subject to the limitations in Rule 412 (sex offenders), a defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s pertinent trait.

9. 3. Yes, he spoke with a Southern accent Circumstantial evidence, makes the possibility of identifying the robber higher. What ruling? Probably overrule and will admit. Is the fact that Pinsky heard the southern accent, Relevant? Can help as a possible identifier. FRE 401: has the tendency to identify the robber more possible. What material fact would it have a tendency to prove? That it was more probable that he was the one at the scene, can be an identifier and used as circumstantial evidence. If it is a relevant fact, then the Judge should rule to "overrule" the objection of irrelevancy? Is that what you would do as a judge? explain. I would overrule because if the robber actually has a Southern accent, then the testimony of the W becomes more reliable.

10. 4. A: Yes. Just a day or two earlier, as I was coming home from work, I noticed someone I hadn’t seen before walking slowly a couple of blocks from my house. I’m pretty sure it was the defendant. What does this statement prove? is it relevant? What does it have a tendency "in reason" to prove. Is this relevant evidence under FRE 402? Explain why relevant, and what does it prove? California Evidence Code 210: "Relevant evidence" means evidence, including evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action." I am not sure if we can say that this proves anything by and of itself. However, it is relevant because: based on everyday experience we can infer that the robber was casing the area.

11. "Walking slowly" what does this prove or disprove if anything? (1)“Slowly” is a relevant term. Every person defines it differently. (2)Even if he was walking slowly, can we rule this out under 402 or 403? "I'm pretty sure" - does that invalidate the observation? does a witness need to be sure about what they see or don't see? please post your thoughts on this. It is admissible. He is not saying he is NOT sure. He is just no 100% sure. Let the defense try to keep this out.

12. 5. The court introduces a "similar knife", but NOT the actual knife. Is this demonstrative evidence Relevant? if so, what material fact does it have a tendency to prove? Explain. as Judge would you allow the "look a like" knife in as evidence? is it more "prejudicial than probative" FRE 403? enter your ruling as a Judge. Demonstrative Evidence: helps and supports testimony. As long as the similar knife is reasonably similar and there is no intention to mislead the jury by saying this was the same knife, it is admissible.

13. 6. Did you have a good opportunity to observe the robber? A: Yes. Is this a proper opinion? can the witness give this opinion? Shouldn't the witness just describe the facts, that is the lighting, the amount of time he had to observe the defendant, the distance, and then leave it up to the jury to draw its own conclusion. If this is improper opinion. what would you do as Judge with it? any support in the Evidence code? where? FRE 701: Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702. W can describe the facts.

14. 7. Do you have any doubt that the defendant over here (pointing to Pinsky) is the person who robbed you? A: None whatsoever. What is relevant about the "certainty" of the witness testimony, if anything. explain, why relevant, if so and what does it prove? what material fact? W’s degree of certainty is relevant (FRE 701 (a)).

15. 8. We contend that the robber dropped it during the robbery, and that it suggests the motive for the robbery the defendant was supporting a cocaine habit. Is the evidence of a cocaine habit, (see Character Evidence at FRE 404) Relevant? what material fact does it prove? is it more inflammatory than probative, and then excluded under FRE 403. make your decision, and support your finding of relevance and our ruling here. Rule 404: Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts (a) Character Evidence. (1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait. Rule 403: D is an addict and this might prejudice the jury against him.

16. 9. I would also make an offer of proof that when the police Arrested Pinsky in his apartment, they found a collection of paramilitary weaponry magazines all with subscription labels bearing his name and address. We intend to offer them as evidence of his interest in and ability to handle knives. Is this relevant evidence? can it be introduced if there has been no admission of any evidence about defendant's ability to "handle knives". Doesn't the prosecution have to first show that the defendant handles a knife in a certain way, before introducing evidence about "ability to handle knives" - does not the prosecution have to first "lay a foundation" before introducing this sort of evidence. Are the magazines relevant, if so why, and what material fact does it prove. enter your ruling and rationale here, Judge. If D had shown a specific way of handling the knife which was mentioned in one of the magazines (lay foundation), then the magazines could have been relevant. However, because someone is interested in knives or guns, it doesn’t make them robbers or serial killers.

17. 10. Well, what time did you arrive home the day before the robbery? Pros. Att: Objection, irrelevant. Is it relevant, the knowledge of the time of arrival at home on the day before the robbery? what does it have a tendency to prove or disprove. enter your ruling of whether this is Relevant evidence. There is no relevance between him arriving home and the actual robbery. It’s irrelevant.

18. 11. Q: And between 1 and 2:30, you consumed 3 martinis, correct? A: Well, that was with lunch. Relevant evidence? what does it go to prove? is it probative, and if so of what? Might be relevant, depending on his height, weight, etc he might have been affected by alcohol level in his body. The jury can decide.

19. 12. When did you decide to accuse Mr. Pinsky of the robbery? A: What do you mean? What is the problem with this question? which objection would you make? law 16 objections Is it argumentative? if so what Evidence Code covers that exclusion? Argumentative.

20. 13. Mr. Duffkin, Im going to ask you to step down and stand over here. I’ll ask that the courtroom lights be turned off; there will still be some light in here. An individual is going to stand next to you. Im going to ask you to turn around, look at that individual momentarily, then turn away from him. Then I’m going to ask 5 people, including that individual, to come into the courtroom and ask you to pick out the one you saw.

21. Would you allow the above procedure if you were the judge. would you object? what is your objection to this procedure? what are the problems with testing the witness abilities to observe in this courtroom re-creation? set forth a reasoned objection to this procedure. Argumentative, the circumstances are too different, the amount of time he had on the night of the incident and this re-make might be very different, the same applies to the lightening and the general state of mind of the W. Also the W has already identified the D.

22. CA Evidence Code 765 (a): The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode of interrogation of a witness so as to make interrogation as rapid, as distinct, and as effective for the ascertainment of the truth, as may be, and to protect the witness from undue harassment or embarrassment.