Mock Trial: - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Mock Trial:Evidence Crash Course

Prof. Robert T. Sherwin

September 2, 2014Slide2

1L Mock TrialFor 1L Mock, the rules provided that all evidentiary exhibits were pre-admitted.The rules also limited the types of objections you could make.

For Advanced Mock (fall and spring), there are no limitations to objections, and you need to establish the admissibility of exhibits you want to use.

2Slide3

Exhibits: The basicsTo be admitted into evidence, all exhibits must be:Relevant (Rule 401)

Authentic (Rule 901)Not otherwise inadmissible (substantially more prejudicial than probative (Rule 403), privileged, hearsay (Rule 802), character evidence (Rules 404-07, 608-09, etc.))

3Slide4

Laying the foundation/authenticationRule 901:To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.

In other words, your witnesses need to testify that the exhibits they’re discussing are authentic and not fake.

4Slide5

Rule 901(b) and 902Rule 901(b) gives broad examples of how to authenticate things like handwriting, voices/telephone conversations, etc.Rule 902 provides a list of 12 types of exhibits that are “self authenticating.”

Public documents, newspapers/periodicals, trade inscriptions, checks/commercial paper, etc.

5Slide6

Foundational checklistsLaying the foundation is easy, albeit formulistic.Consult Chapter 7 of Mauet’s

“Trial Techniques and Trials” book or the Checklists and Foundations portion of the “Courtroom Evidence Handbook” by Goode and Wellborn.

6Slide7

Seven steps for admitting exhibitsMark the exhibit with a number (i.e., “Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3.”)

Show opposing counsel exhibit.Show the witness the exhibit.

Lay the foundation for admission.

Move the exhibit into evidence.

Discuss the exhibit with the witness.

Publish the exhibit to the jury.

7Slide8

Example: tangible objectQ: I’ve handed you what’s been marked as State’s

Exh. 1. Do you recognize it?A: Yes.Q: What is it?A: It’s my wallet that was stolen.Q: How do you recognize it?

A: I remember what my wallet looked like and

i

t has my driver’s license and credit cards inside just like I remember.

8Slide9

Example: tangible object (cont.)Q: Is Exhibit 1 in the same or substantially the same condition today as when you saw it last?A: Yes.

“Your Honor, I offer State’s Exhibit 1 into evidence.”

9Slide10

Example: tangible object (cont.)Witness should testify that he/she:Recognizes the exhibit, and how he/she recognizes it;

Knew what it looked like on the day in question, and how he/she knows; andIs certain the exhibit is in the same or substantially the same condition as it was when the witness last saw it.

10Slide11

Example: documentQ: I’ve handed you what’s been marked as Plaintiff’s Ex. 1. Do you recognize it?

A: Yes.Q: What is it?A: It’s the contract I signed with Mr. Jones in 2010.Q: How do you recognize it?A

: I looked at it before I signed it, and my signature is at the bottom.

11Slide12

Example: document (cont.)Q: Do you recall signing this document?A: I do.Q: Is this the original document or a copy?

A: A copy.Q: Is Exhibit 1 a true and correct copy of the original contract?A: It is.

12Slide13

Example: document (cont.)Q: Did the Defendant sign this contract?A: Yes -- his signature is at the bottom.

Q: How do you know it’s his signature?A: I saw him sign it.Q: Is this contract in the same condition as it was when you and he signed it?A: Yes.“Your Honor, I

offer

Plaintiff’s

Exhibit 1

into evidence.”

13Slide14

Example: document (cont.)Witness should testify that he/she:Recognizes the exhibit, and how he/she recognizes it;

Knows whether it is an original or copy, and if it’s a copy if it’s true and correct;Is certain the exhibit is in the same condition as it was when the witness last saw it; and

[if the document contains a signature] can verify whose signatures the document contains.

14Slide15

Example: photographQ: I’ve handed you what’s been marked as Plaintiff’s Ex. 1. Do you recognize it?

A: Yes.Q: What is it?A: It’s a picture of the accident scene.Q: How do you recognize it?A

: I was there the day of the accident.

Q: Did you take this picture?

A: No.

15Slide16

Example: photograph (cont.)Q: Does this picture fairly and accurately represent the accident scene as you remember it?A: Yes.

“Your Honor, I offer Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 into evidence.”

16Slide17

Example: photograph (cont.)Witness should testify that he/she:Is familiar with the scene portrayed in the picture;

Is familiar with the scene at the relevant date and time; andIs certain that the picture “fairly and accurately” represents the scene as it appeared on the relevant date.

17Slide18

Seven steps for admitting exhibitsMark the exhibit with a number (i.e., “Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3.”)

Show opposing counsel exhibit.Show the witness the exhibit.

Lay the foundation for admission.

Move the exhibit into evidence.

Discuss the exhibit with the witness.

Publish the exhibit to the jury.

18Slide19

Exhibits for demonstrative purposesSometimes, you can’t authenticate something because it’s not the real thing or isn’t a direct product of the event in question.Examples: Models, diagrams, drawings, mockups, computer simulations.

If you’re only using the exhibit to illustrate something to the jury, the judge may allow it as a demonstrative.

19Slide20

Demonstrative foundationTo use a demonstrative exhibit, you only need to show:The exhibit relates to some piece of admissible substantive proof and fairly and accurately represents that proof; and

The exhibit would aid the trier of fact in understanding or evaluating the related substantive evidence.

20Slide21

Example -- modelQ: Mr. Smith, do you recognize Exhibit 6?A: I do.Q: How do you recognize it?

A: It’s a model I created of the house.Q: Does this model accurately portray and reflect the house?A: Yes.

21Slide22

Example – model (cont.)Q: Will this model assist you in helping us understand your testimony about the house?A: I think it will.

“Your Honor, I offer Exhibit 6 for demonstrative purposes.”

22Slide23

Final thoughts on authentication Think ahead of time what kinds of things the witness needs to say to authenticate an exhibit. Consult a textbook or the Courtroom Evidence Handbook for each type of exhibit.

Script out your foundation questions.Don’t confuse authentication with admissibility! Just because an exhibit is authentic doesn’t mean it’s admissible!

23Slide24

Hearsay (insert scary music here)Merriam-Webster=“Rumor”Rule 801Hearsay means a statement that: (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

Huh? What’s a statement? And who’s this “declarant”? And what the $%&* is “truth of the matter asserted”???

24Slide25

Statement and declarantRule 801(a):“Statement” means a person’s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion.

Rule 801(b):“Declarant” means the person who made the statement.The declarant is often (but not necessarily) someone other

than the witness.

25Slide26

Why we exclude hearsayWhen a witness on the stand is being asked to testify about something someone said or wrote out of court, we should be concerned.Why? Because PEOPLE LIE when they’re not under oath.

We have to be concerned about out-of-court statements because they may have been total BS when they were made.But we don’t exclude everything!

26Slide27

Some stuff gets in…Statements that aren’t offered “for the truth of the matter asserted”

Statements made by the opposing partySome (but not all) of the testifying witness’s out-of-court statements

Docs w/ independent legal significance

Statements that fall within a “hearsay exception” (everybody sing along

!!!)

27Slide28

The starting point…Is the witness being asked to testify about an out-of-court statement (EITHER his own statement OR someone else’s)?If so, RED FLAGS! LOUD NOISES! POSSIBLE HEARSAY!!!

So, let’s calmly go through the analysis.

28Slide29

The analysis – Part 1First and foremost: Ask yourself why you want the witness to testify about what someone said out of court.For what purpose are you offering this statement as evidence?

Are you trying to prove the very fact asserted in the statement? If so, you’ve got problems (TOMA).But if not, IT’S NOT HEARSAY!!!

29Slide30

Truth of the matter asserted (TOMA)Example:

P has sued D for running a red light and causing a wreck. P calls Wally as a witness, who will testify that he heard D’s wife say “my husband ran the red light.”TOMA?YES!!! We care if this statement is true!P is trying to prove that D ran a red light. The statement of declarant (D’s wife) is being offered to prove that fact!

30Slide31

TOMA (cont.)Example:P has sued D for running a red light and causing a wreck that killed P’s wife.

D admits he ran the red light, but says that P’s wife died instantly and did not suffer. P says his wife suffered in extreme pain for two hours before dying. P calls Wally

as a witness, who will testify that he heard P’s wife say “D ran the red light”

one hour after the accident.

31Slide32

TOMA (cont.)Example (cont.):TOMA

?NO!!! We don’t care if the statement is true; we’re not trying to prove whether D ran the red light.P is only trying to prove that his wife was alive by showing that she said something. Whether what she said (“D ran the red light”) is true is irrelevant – it could have been a lie and we wouldn’t care.

32Slide33

TOMA (cont.)Example:In a murder case, the State calls Wally as a witness, who says he heard Donna at a bar say she saw D shoot the victim.

TOMA?Yes!!! The State is trying to prove that D shot the victim. Donna’s statement “I saw D shoot the victim” tends to prove that fact. Donna is free to take the stand and testify herself, but Wally’s testimony about what he heard Donna say is not OK!

33Slide34

TOMA (cont.)Example:In

a murder case, the State calls Officer as a witness, who says Wally called to say he saw D burying a gun in the yard. The call led Officer to find the murder weapon.

TOMA

?

No!

!! The State is trying to

show the effect of the statement on the listener (why and how Officer found the gun). Wally’s

statement

is only being offered to show what led Officer to find the gun.

34Slide35

Some reasons other than TOMATo prove the declarant was capable of speaking or his state of mind.To prove someone was warned or on notice.

To prove or explain the effect the statement had on those who heard it (i.e., why someone reacted the way he did).Impeachment.

35Slide36

TOMA in sumDoes the probative value of the statement depend on its truthfulness?Otherwise put: Do we care if the statement is true

?If yes, then it’s being offered for TOMA.If no, then it’s not (and is not hearsay).

36Slide37

The analysis – Part 2If you determine that the statement is being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, ask, “is this the declarant my opponent?”A declarant’s statement offered against the declarant (who is now a party) is non-

hearsay (Rule (801(d)(2)).Whether true or false, the things you say “can be held against you.”

37Slide38

Statements by party opponentNeed not be an “admission.”Anything a party says out of court can be used against that party and it’s not hearsay.

Example:State calls Wally to testify that D told Wally “I bet it’d be fun to beat up Vicki.”D is the State’s party opponent, so the State can use D’s statement (as testified to by Wally) against him.

38Slide39

The analysis – Part 3Is the declarant also the witness? If so, the statement is not hearsay if:It was made under oath in a different case and is inconsistent with the witness’s current testimony;

It is consistent with the witness’s current testimony and is being offered to rebut a charge that the witness recently fabricated his story; orIt identifies a person as someone the witness perceived earlier.

39Slide40

The analysis – Part 4Documents with independent legal significance:Wills

ContractsChecksDeedsThey assert/establish legal rights, responsibilities, and obligations. They are NOT hearsay!

40Slide41

The analysis – Part 5If the statement:IS being offered for TOMA;

Is NOT an statement by party opponent (801(d)(2);Is NOT a prior non-hearsay statement by the witness (801(d)(1); andIs not a document with independent legal significance,Then: HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS!!!

41Slide42

Why have exceptions?The theory: Even though we’re not under oath, sometimes we say things under circumstances in which we probably wouldn’t lie.

42Slide43

Rules 803 and 804Present sense impression (“we’re going really fast!”)

Excited utterance (“he’s got a gun!”)Then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition (“I’m scared!”)Statement made for medical diagnosis or treatment (“This is the worst pain ever!”)

Business records (timesheets, balance sheets)

Dying declarations

Statements against interest (“he sold me drugs”)

43Slide44

Final thoughts on hearsayDon’t forget the five-step analysis!Read and re-read 803 and 804 – create (or find) a list of the exceptions that you can quickly reference.

Beware (but not afraid) of “hearsay within hearsay” (Rule 805).Don’t fool around with the “residual exception” (Rule 807).

44Slide45

Character evidenceRule 404(a):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.

In other words, you can’t offer evidence of past crimes, wrongs, bad acts, or one’s reputation in order to show that someone acted in a particular way in your case.

45Slide46

ExamplesYou can’t use evidence of one’s past speeding tickets to prove he negligently caused an accident.You can’t use evidence that someone was convicted of robbery five years ago to prove that he broke into your house last week.

46Slide47

ExceptionsIn a criminal case:D can put on character evidence of himself. That opens the door to the prosecution to put on evidence to rebut the D’s character evidence.

D can put on character evidence of the victim. Again, that opens the door.In a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of victim’s peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.

47Slide48

ExceptionsIn a civil case:Where character is an element of the claim (defamation, negligent entrustment, etc.)

48Slide49

Permitted in all casesWhile you can’t use evidence of crimes, wrongs, or other acts to prove that the person acted in accordance with those bad things, you CAN use them to show:

Motive, knowledge, opportunity.IntentAbsence of M

istake

I

dentity

C

ommon plan or scheme

49Slide50

Methods of proving characterIf it is admissible (because D opens door or under MIMIC), then you can show one’s character by:Reputation or opinion

Specific instances of conductTo show reputation, witness needs to “lay foundation” by proving he/she is familiar with the person, the relevant community, and the person’s reputation in that community.

50Slide51

Don’t forget about the rest of the 400sHabit: Rule 406Evidence of a person’s habit or organization’s routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice.

It’s not really character evidence so much as it is evidence of what someone always or routinely does.Other rules

51Slide52

Character evidence and impeachmentYou can always impeach a witness with evidence about his/her character for truthfulness or bias.

Methods:Opinion/reputationSpecific acts that bear on honesty or bias.Convictions

Crimes involving dishonesty

Any felony

But beware of “10 year” limit of 609(b)

52Slide53

Final thoughts on character evidenceGeneral rule: You can’t offer evidence of prior bad things, a person’s bad/good reputation, or another person’s opinion.Exceptions in criminal cases (D’s own good reputation, which opens door) and MIMIC.

Find a way to make a MIMIC argument!You CAN use character evidence against a witness for impeachment purposes.

53Slide54

Mock Trial:Evidence Crash Course

Prof. Robert T. Sherwin

September 2, 2014