lOMoARcPSD|12501682
Evidence Attack Outline- Short
Law (University of California, Berkeley)
StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Downloaded by kurtis collins (collik9@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|12501682
[
FOUNDATI
ONAL]QUESTI
ONS
602. Personal Knowledge

Witness may testify only if evidence is sufficient to support a finding that witness has personal knowledge of the matter
611. Mode/ Order of Examining Witnesses & Presenting Evidence
(a) Control by Court. Court should exercise reasonable control over mode & order of examining witnesses & presenting evidence so as to:
o Make procedures effective for determining truth; avoid wasting time; & protect witnesses from harassment/ undue embarrassment
(b) Scope of Cross-Examination. Not to exceed subject matter of direct examination and matters affecting witness credibility.
o But court may permit inquiry into additional matters; credibility is always relevant
(c) Leading Questions. Not on direct examination, except as needed to develop witness testimony (generally permissible to lay foundation)
(1) Permitted on cross-examination; and
(2) When party calls hostile witness, adverse party, or witness identified by adverse party
606. Juror.
(a) At Trial. Juror may not testify as witness before other jurors at trial; if called, court must give party opp. to object outside juror’s presence
(b) During Inquiry into Validity of Verdict/ Indictment
(1) Prohibited Testimony or Other Evidence. Juror may not testify about stmt. made/ incident that occurred during jury deliberation,
effect on jury or juror’s vote/ juror’s mental processes re. verdict/ indictment. No juror’s affidavit/ evidence of juror stmts.
(2) Exceptions.
(A) Extraneous prejudicial information [Newspaper/ online coverage]
Must challenge before
(B) Outside influence-- No impeachment rule (Tanner, drugs & intoxication not constitute outside influence)
jury deliberation
(C) Mistake made entering verdict on verdict form [barrow exception]

But, limited exception to no impeachment rule where clear stmt. of racial bias—duty to confront racial animus (Pena-Rodriguez)
613. Witness.
(a) When examining witness about prior stmt., party need not show/ disclose its contents to the witness

But, on request, party must show/ disclose contents to adverse party’s attorney
(b) Extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent witness statement is admissible only if:

Witness is given opportunity to explain/ deny stmt. and

Adverse party is given opportunity to cross-examine witness about it

But does not apply to 801(d)(2) opposing party statements

613 may be limited by 403—under Ince, if a retrial, one cannot circumvent a hearsay rule by repeating what was already done
o Court should rarely permit government to impeach own witness by admitting evidence—otherwise inadmissible hearsay—if the
statement contains ’s alleged confession.
104.PRELI
MI
NARYQUESTI
ONS& CONDI
TI
ONALRELEVANCE
(a) Preliminary Question. Court must decide any preliminary question— whether witness is qualified, privilege exists, or evidence is admissible.
Judge must resolve the question by preponderance of the evidence; higher standard than 104(b)
(b) Conditional Relevance. When relevance depends on whether a fact exists, proof must be provided to support a finding, by the preponderance of
the evidence, that the fact does exist [relevancy of one piece of evidence depends on another piece of evidence]

Court may admit on condition that proof be later introduced

Judge must find by the preponderance of the evidence [but jury has higher standard] (Huddleson)
o Bias is always material; judge determines whether jury could find bias by preponderance of evidence [conditional relevance]
Preliminary question
addressed
FRE 104(a)
all preliminary questions are to be resolved by the court -- meaning
statement is relevant even if the facts are not true
Evidence reviewed
judge can look at inadmissible and admissible evidence
jury can only look at the admissible evidence
Standard of review
judge determines by the preponderance of the evidence
court determines if jury can determine by preponderance of evidence
Examples
Bourjaily (if stmt. met agent & coconspirator exclusion- requires
consideration of context & circumstances); etc.
Huddleston (relevant to his knowledge whether TVs were stolen); bias
(c)
(d)
(e)
FRE 104(b)
only preliminary questions upon which “relevancy of evidence depends.” -meaning statement is relevant only if facts are true
Conducting Hearing so that Jury cannot Hear it. Court must conduct preliminary hearing so jury cannot hear it if:

(1) Hearing involves admission of confession; (2) criminal  is witness and requests it; or (3) justice requires it
Cross-x of  in Criminal Case. Testifying on preliminary question does not make criminal  does subject to cross-x on other issues in case
Evidence Relevant to Weight & Credibility. Does not limit right to introduce jury evidence relevant to weight/ credibility of other evidence
401RELEVANCE

Judge may find relevance if: [differential standard]
(1) What is fact party is trying to prove?
(a) It has any tendency to make fact more or less probable [probative], and
(2) Is that fact material?
(3) What is the evidence offered?

Zagranski, show me the body, probative value based on assumption re. human behavior
(4) Does evidence make it more/ less probable?

Scheffer, polygraph consent, probative of consciousness of innocence
(5) Outcome
(b) Fact is of consequence in determining the action [material]

Egelhoff, voluntary intoxication, not of consequence in determining the action where excluded by statute
402.GENERALADMI
SSI
BI
LI
TYOFEVI
DENCE

All relevant evidence is admissible unless limited by:
o (1) Constitution; (2) Statute; (3) Evidentiary Rules; or (4) Supreme Court precedence [only supersedes FRE if constitutional issue]
1
Downloaded by kurtis collins (collik9@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|12501682
403.EXCLUDI
NGRELEVANTEVI
DENCE

Co
ur
tma
ye
x
c
l
u
der
e
l
e
v
a
nte
v
i
de
nc
ei
fi
t
sp
r
o
ba
t
i
v
ev
a
l
ues
ubs
t
ant
i
al
l
yout
we
i
ghe
db
yr
i
s
kofun
f
a
i
rpr
e
j
ud
i
c
e
,c
o
nf
us
i
n
gt
h
ei
s
s
ue
s
,mi
s
l
e
a
di
n
gt
h
ej
ur
y
,
un
du
ede
l
a
y
,wa
s
t
eoft
i
me
,orn
e
e
dl
e
s
sc
umu
l
a
t
i
v
ee
v
i
de
n
c
e
o
Ja
me
s
,wh
e
r
ec
r
uxofc
as
ei
s’
sc
r
e
d
i
bi
l
i
t
y[
whe
t
he
rv
i
c
t
i
m wa
sa
g
gr
e
s
s
or
]
,
c
or
r
o
bor
a
t
i
v
er
e
a
s
o
ni
n
gof’
sf
e
a
ri
ss
u
ffic
i
e
nt
o
Pho
t
os& Ot
he
rI
nflamma
t
or
yEvi
de
nc
e
.Pr
os
e
c
ut
i
o
nn
o
tr
e
q
ui
r
e
dt
oo
pe
r
a
t
ei
ns
t
e
r
i
l
ee
n
v
i
r
onme
nt–a
l
l
o
we
dt
ot
e
l
lna
r
r
a
t
i
v
e

Boc
har
s
ki[
pr
ob
l
e
mat
i
ca
ut
o
ps
ye
x
hi
b
i
t
s
]a
b
us
eofdi
s
c
r
e
t
i
ont
oa
dmi
tt
hep
ho
t
odu
et
ol
o
wp
r
o
ba
t
i
v
ev
a
l
ue
Hi
t
t[
ph
o
t
oofun
r
e
gi
s
t
e
r
e
dg
un
s
]d
a
n
g
e
rofc
o
nf
us
i
n
gt
h
ei
s
s
ue
—n
o
tr
e
l
e
v
a
n
tt
owhe
t
he
rgu
nr
a
pi
dfir
e
d


Se
r
g
e
,b
a
s
i
cc
omput
e
r
g
e
ne
r
a
t
e
da
n
i
ma
t
i
onofmur
de
r
— de
v
oi
do
fs
ou
nd,
f
a
c
i
a
lf
e
a
t
ur
e
s
,a
ndl
i
f
e
l
i
k
emo
v
e
me
nt
s
—a
dmi
s
s
i
b
l
e
o
Evi
de
nc
eofFl
i
ght

Re
q
u
i
r
e
sf
ouri
nf
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
:
(
1) Fr
om’
sb
e
h
a
v
i
ort
ofli
gh
t
(
2) Fr
omfli
gh
tt
oc
o
ns
c
i
ous
ne
s
sofgu
i
l
t
(
3) Fr
omc
ons
c
i
o
us
ne
s
sofg
ui
l
tt
oc
ons
c
i
o
us
ne
s
so
fg
ui
l
tr
e
.
c
r
i
mec
h
a
r
g
e
d
(
4) Fr
omc
ons
c
i
o
us
ne
s
sofg
ui
l
tr
ec
r
i
mec
ha
r
g
e
dt
oa
c
t
u
a
lgu
i
l
tf
orc
r
i
mec
ha
r
g
e
d

My
e
r
s
,l
o
wp
r
o
ba
t
i
v
ev
a
l
ueb
/
ca
l
lr
e
q
ui
r
e
me
n
t
smus
ta
l
i
gnf
ori
nf
e
r
e
n
c
e
st
obet
r
ue
,& f
ouri
nf
e
r
e
n
c
e
smus
tbes
ub
s
t
a
nt
i
a
t
e
d

Mo
r
ei
n
t
e
r
v
e
ni
n
ge
v
e
nt
s
/r
e
mo
t
ei
nt
i
mea
l
l
e
g
e
dfli
g
hti
sf
r
omc
r
i
me
/a
c
c
us
a
t
i
on mor
el
i
k
e
l
yfli
ghti
sn
o
tbe
c
a
us
eofg
ui
l
t

Ab
s
e
nc
eoffli
g
hti
sr
e
l
e
v
a
nt
,b
utp
r
o
ba
t
i
v
ev
a
l
uel
o
w—nos
e
t
t
l
e
dl
a
w
o
Pr
obabi
l
i
t
yEvi
de
nc
e

Co
l
l
i
ns
,
pr
ob
a
b
i
l
i
s
t
i
cd
a
t
a
–u
nf
a
i
r
l
ypr
e
j
ud
i
c
i
a
li
fn
o
te
s
t
a
bl
i
s
he
db
ys
uffic
i
e
n
te
v
i
de
nc
e[
q
ua
l
i
t
yo
fu
nd
e
r
l
y
i
n
gda
t
a
;r
i
g
orofma
t
h]
o
Effe
c
tofSt
i
pul
a
t
i
ons

40
3mus
tb
er
e
a
di
nl
i
ghtof1
02[
p
r
omo
t
ef
a
i
rpr
oc
e
e
di
n
g
s
,e
l
i
mi
na
t
eu
n
j
us
t
i
fia
bl
ee
xp
e
ns
e
/de
l
a
y,p
r
omo
t
ee
v
i
d
e
nt
i
a
r
yl
a
w]
,a
nda
pp
l
i
e
s
fle
xi
bl
es
c
h
e
meo
fd
i
s
c
r
e
t
i
o
na
r
yj
ud
gme
ntt
omi
ni
mi
z
ee
v
i
de
nt
i
a
r
yc
os
t
sofp
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
n
gp
a
r
t
i
e
sf
r
omunf
a
i
rp
r
e
j
u
di
c
e

Jac
ks
on,
c
our
ta
pp
l
i
e
sc
on
di
t
i
on
a
le
x
c
l
us
i
onofe
v
i
de
nc
e
,p
r
o
v
i
de
dt
ha
t e
n
t
e
ri
ns
t
i
pu
l
a
t
i
o
n,t
oa
v
oi
dr
i
s
kofu
nf
a
i
rp
r
e
j
u
di
c
e
Ol
dChi
e
f
,wh
e
nde
a
l
i
n
gwi
t
hs
t
a
t
usc
r
i
me
s
,
s
t
i
p
ul
a
t
i
onl
o
we
r
sp
r
o
ba
t
i
v
ev
a
l
ueofr
e
c
or
dofe
v
i
de
n
c
ea
swho
l
ea
n
dr
e
q
ui
r
e
st
ha
t

pr
os
e
c
ut
i
ont
h
usa
c
c
e
p
tt
hes
t
i
pul
a
t
i
o
n—l
i
mi
t
e
dt
os
t
a
t
usc
r
i
me
s
,n
o
tt
obei
mput
e
dt
ome
nsr
e
ac
r
i
me
s
407
411.SPECI
ALI
ZEDRELI
EVANCERULES
40
7.
Subs
e
que
ntRe
me
di
a
lMe
as
ur
e
s
.

Wh
e
nme
a
s
ur
e
st
a
k
e
nt
ha
twoul
dha
v
emadepr
i
ori
nj
ur
y/har
ml
e
s
sl
i
ke
l
y,e
v
i
de
n
c
eofs
ub
s
e
q
u
e
n
tme
a
s
u
r
eno
ta
dmi
s
s
i
bl
et
op
r
o
v
e
:

Ne
g
l
i
g
e
nc
e
,
c
ul
p
a
b
l
ec
on
du
c
t
,d
e
f
e
c
ti
npr
od
uc
to
rd
e
s
i
g
n,n
e
e
df
orwa
r
n
i
n
gori
ns
t
r
uc
t
i
o
n

Ex
c
e
pt
i
on.Ma
ybea
dmi
t
t
e
df
ora
no
t
he
rpur
pos
e
:i
.
e
.
,i
mpe
a
c
hme
ntor
,
i
fd
i
s
put
e
d,o
wne
r
s
h
i
p,
c
on
t
r
ol
,
orf
e
a
s
i
bi
l
i
t
yofp
r
e
c
a
ut
i
o
na
r
yme
a
s
ur
e
s

Bu
te
v
i
de
nc
emus
tf
a
l
lne
a
t
l
yi
nt
oc
a
t
e
g
or
ywh
e
nc
a
s
t
i
n
gd
ou
bto
nc
r
e
d
i
bi
l
i
t
yofwi
t
ne
s
st
e
s
t
i
mon
y



Mahl
andt
,e
vi
de
nc
e[
c
h
a
i
ni
n
gwol
f
]i
sa
dmi
s
s
i
bl
et
or
e
buts
t
a
t
e
me
ntr
e
.l
a
c
kofo
wn
e
r
s
hi
p
Wood,Ar
myCor
ewoodc
hi
ppe
r
,a
dmi
s
s
i
bl
et
or
e
butpr
e
s
ump
t
i
ont
ha
tt
hi
si
st
hes
a
mema
c
hi
ne— onc
ema
nuf
a
c
t
ur
eputt
ha
ta
ti
s
s
ue
WoodI
I
,t
h
e“s
af
e
s
twoodc
hi
ppe
r
,
”a
dmi
s
s
i
bl
ef
ori
mpe
a
c
hme
nt— onc
ema
nu
f
a
c
t
ur
eputt
ha
ta
ti
s
s
ue
40
8.
Compr
i
s
e
sandNe
g
o
t
i
a
t
i
ons
.
(
a
) Pr
ohi
bi
t
e
dUs
e
s
.Ev
i
de
nc
ei
si
na
dmi
s
s
i
b
l
e
,bye
i
t
he
rpar
t
y,t
opr
o
v
eordi
s
pr
o
v
ev
al
i
di
t
yo
ra
mounto
fdi
s
put
e
dc
l
ai
m ort
oi
mpe
ac
hb
ypr
i
or
i
nc
ons
i
s
t
e
nts
t
a
t
e
me
n
to
rc
on
t
r
a
d
i
c
t
i
on

Re
q
u
i
r
e
sl
a
ws
ui
t
,
a
nt
i
c
i
pa
t
i
o
nofl
e
g
a
lc
l
a
i
ms[
no
ta
l
li
nf
or
ma
lo
r
a
l
/wr
i
t
t
e
nde
ma
n
dsc
o
v
e
r
e
d
]–no
tb
a
rc
ompr
omi
s
e
sbe
f
or
el
a
ws
u
i
t

Ra
mada,r
e
p
or
tp
r
o
du
c
e
di
na
nt
i
c
i
pa
t
i
on&pr
e
pa
r
a
t
i
o
nf
ors
e
t
t
l
e
me
ntn
e
g
o
t
i
a
t
i
onsn
o
ta
dmi
s
s
i
b
l
e
hi
r
dpar
t
i
e
s

Di
s
c
r
e
t
i
ona
r
ya
p
pl
i
c
a
t
i
o
na
st
owhe
t
he
re
v
i
de
nc
eb
a
r
r
e
df
orc
omp
r
omi
s
ewi
t
ht
(
b) Ex
c
e
pt
i
on.Ma
ybea
dmi
t
t
e
df
ora
no
t
he
rpur
pos
e
,i
.
e
.
,bi
a
s
/
p
r
e
j
ud
i
c
e
;c
l
a
i
mofun
du
ede
l
a
y
;e
ffor
tt
oo
b
s
t
r
u
c
ti
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
on
/pr
os
e
c
ut
i
on

Banc
ar
d,p
a
r
t
yc
a
n
no
ts
e
du
c
ea
no
t
he
rt
ot
a
k
ef
ur
t
h
e
rh
a
r
msd
ur
i
n
gs
e
t
t
l
e
me
ntne
g
o
t
i
a
t
i
on,
a
n
dus
e4
08a
ss
hi
e
l
dt
oa
v
oi
dd
i
s
c
l
os
ur
e
40
9.
Offe
rt
oPa
yMe
di
c
alExpe
ns
e
s

Offe
r
/pr
omi
s
et
opa
yme
di
c
a
l
,
ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
,ors
i
mi
l
a
re
xp
e
ns
er
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
gf
r
omi
n
j
ur
yno
ta
dmi
s
s
i
bl
et
op
r
o
v
el
i
a
bi
l
i
t
yf
ori
n
j
ur
y

Bu
tno
tc
ol
l
a
t
e
r
a
ls
t
a
t
e
me
nt
s[
i
.
e
.
,apol
o
gi
e
s–a
dmi
s
s
i
o
ni
nma
l
pr
a
c
t
i
c
ec
a
s
e
s
–l
e
g
a
li
ns
ur
a
n
c
eba
r
r
i
e
r
sma
yt
huspr
e
c
l
u
dec
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
]
41
0.
Pl
e
as
(
a) Pr
ohi
bi
t
e
dUs
e
s
.I
nc
i
v
i
lorc
r
i
mi
na
lc
a
s
e
,e
v
i
d
e
n
c
ea
g
ai
ns
tde
f
e
ndanti
sn
o
ta
d
mi
s
s
i
b
l
ewhe
r
e
:
(
1) Gui
l
t
yp
l
e
al
a
t
e
rwi
t
hdr
a
wn
Also check hearsay!
(
2) No
l
oc
o
nt
e
n
de
r
epl
e
a
(
3) St
mt
.ma
d
ed
ur
i
n
gpl
e
ab
a
r
g
a
i
np
r
o
c
e
e
di
n
g
si
fdi
s
c
us
s
i
onsdi
dn
o
tr
e
s
u
l
ti
ng
ui
l
t
ypl
e
a
(
4) St
mt
.ma
d
ed
ur
i
n
gpl
e
ab
a
r
g
a
i
np
r
o
c
e
e
di
n
g
si
fdi
s
c
us
s
i
onsdi
dr
e
s
u
l
ti
ng
ui
l
t
ypl
e
a

Advi
s
or
yNo
t
e
s
:pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
nonl
yr
e
a
c
he
ss
t
mt
s
.ma
d
ed
ur
i
n
gpl
e
an
e
g
o
t
i
a
t
i
o
nsa
ndwi
t
hpr
os
e
c
ut
or

St
mt
s
.wi
t
hp
r
os
e
c
ut
orma
yn
o
tb
eus
e
dt
oi
mpe
a
c
hi
f t
e
s
t
i
fie
sd
i
ffe
r
e
nt
l
ya
tt
r
i
a
l

Al
li
nf
o
.a
dmi
s
s
i
b
l
eun
l
e
s
s ma
k
e
sc
l
e
a
rt
ha
th
es
e
e
ksc
o
nc
e
s
s
i
o
n

Pr
os
e
c
ut
or
sma
y
,
a
spr
e
c
on
di
t
i
ont
op
l
e
ane
g
o
t
i
a
t
i
ons
,
de
ma
nd a
gr
e
et
ha
ta
n
ys
t
mt
.ma
d
ed
ur
i
n
gne
g
o
t
i
a
t
i
onsbeu
s
e
dt
oi
mpe
a
c
h
c
on
t
r
a
di
c
t
i
n
gt
e
s
t
i
mon
ya
tt
r
i
a
l(
Me
z
z
ana
t
t
o)
—g
o
odf
ai
t
hwai
v
e
rof41
0

Nop
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
nf
orp
r
os
e
c
ut
or
sf
r
om  p
r
e
s
e
nt
i
n
ge
v
i
de
nc
et
ha
tpr
os
e
c
ut
ord
r
o
pp
e
dc
ha
r
g
ed
ur
i
n
gpl
e
ad
i
s
c
us
s
i
o
n

Hi
ghp
r
o
ba
t
i
v
ev
a
l
uewhe
r
e r
e
j
e
c
t
e
di
mmun
i
t
yi
ne
x
c
ha
n
g
ef
ori
nf
or
ma
t
i
o
n(
Bi
a
g
gi
)
(
b) Ex
c
e
pt
i
ons
.
Co
ur
tma
ya
dmi
ts
t
mt
.

Toc
ompl
e
t
epa
r
t
i
a
la
c
c
ou
ntofpl
e
ad
i
s
c
us
s
i
o
n;or

I
npe
r
j
ur
yp
r
os
e
c
ut
i
o
ni
fs
t
mt
.u
nd
e
ro
a
t
h,i
nr
e
c
or
d,a
ndi
npr
e
s
e
nc
eo
fc
ou
ns
e
l(
Mar
i
a
t
t
ar
e
t
r
i
a
l
,
“
gu
y
si
nb
a
c
ka
l
l
e
y
”
)
41
1.
Li
abi
l
i
t
yI
ns
ur
anc
e

Ev
i
de
n
c
eofi
ns
ur
a
nc
e
/l
a
c
kofi
n
s
ur
a
nc
ei
na
dmi
s
s
i
b
l
et
op
r
o
v
en
e
g
l
i
g
e
n
c
e
/o
t
h
e
rwr
on
g

Bu
tc
our
tma
ya
dmi
te
v
i
d
e
nc
ef
ora
no
t
he
rpur
pos
e
,i
.
e
.
,wi
t
ne
s
s
’
sbi
as
/pr
e
j
udi
c
e
,a
g
e
nc
y,
o
wne
r
s
hi
p,
c
ont
r
ol

Wi
l
i
ams
,r
a
t
i
ona
l
ef
orhi
r
i
n
ga
t
t
or
ne
y[
unf
a
v
or
a
bl
ei
nt
e
r
a
c
t
i
onw/i
ns
ur
a
nc
ea
g
e
nt
]di
dn
’
tdi
r
e
c
t
l
ybe
a
ron’
sl
i
a
bi
l
i
t
y/wr
on
gf
ulc
onduc
t
,e
vi
de
nc
e
s
houl
db
ea
dmi
t
t
e
dt
or
e
butj
ur
y
’
si
nf
e
r
e
nc
et
ha
tpl
a
i
nt
i
ffi
sl
i
t
i
gi
ousa
ndha
si
mpr
ope
rmo
t
i
v
ef
o
rr
e
t
a
i
ni
n
gl
e
g
a
lc
ouns
e
l
2
Downloaded by kurtis collins (collik9@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|12501682



Robe
r
s
on,e
vi
d
e
nc
et
ha
te
xpe
r
twi
t
ne
s
sh
a
sbi
a
st
o
wa
r
dsdoc
t
or
,b
e
c
a
us
eofs
a
memut
ua
li
ns
ur
a
nc
ec
ompa
n
y
,no
tpr
e
c
l
ude
db
y411
Lac
he
r[
whe
r
ei
ns
ur
e
rwa
se
mpl
o
y
e
db
y’
si
ns
ur
a
nc
ec
ompa
n
y
]
—bute
vi
de
nc
e
,a
dmi
s
s
i
bl
eunde
r411ma
ybel
i
mi
t
e
db
y403
Advi
s
or
yNo
t
e
s
:pu
bl
i
cpo
l
i
c
yr
a
t
i
ona
l
et
oa
v
o
i
dwi
ndf
al
lf
oro
pp
on
e
n
tofi
ns
ur
e
dpa
r
t
y[
whe
r
ej
ur
yma
ys
e
e
kde
e
p(
i
ns
u
r
e
d
)po
c
k
e
t
s
]
I
n
a
dmi
s
s
i
bl
e
Ex
c
e
pt
i
on(
Admi
s
s
i
bl
e
)
Ad
vi
s
or
yCommi
t
t
e
eNot
e
s
407.Sub
s
e
que
nt
Re
me
di
alMe
as
ur
e
s
Topr
o
v
e
:ne
gl
i
g
e
nc
e
;c
ul
pa
bl
ec
onduc
t
;
pr
oduc
tl
i
a
bi
l
i
t
y
;ne
e
df
orwa
r
ni
n
g
Fo
ra
no
t
he
rpur
pos
e
:i
mpe
a
c
hme
nt
;or
i
fdi
s
put
e
d–o
wn
e
r
s
hi
p,c
ont
r
ol
,f
e
a
s
i
bi
l
i
t
y
Di
s
c
r
e
t
i
onr
es
ub
s
e
q
ue
ntme
a
s
ur
e
sb
yt
hi
r
dpa
r
t
i
e
s
;no
b
a
r
r
e
db
y407butma
yb
el
i
mi
t
e
db
y403.
408.Compr
omi
s
e
s
/
Ne
g
ot
i
at
i
ons
Topr
o
v
e
:v
a
l
i
di
t
y/a
mountofadi
s
put
e
dc
l
a
i
m
ort
oi
mpe
a
c
hb
ypr
i
ori
nc
ons
i
s
t
e
nts
t
mt
s
.
Fo
ra
no
t
he
rpur
pos
e
:r
e
butunduede
l
a
yc
l
a
i
m;
s
ho
wob
s
t
r
uc
t
i
onofi
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
on;s
ho
wbi
a
s
Noe
vi
de
nc
epr
i
ort
oc
l
a
i
m[
l
a
ws
ui
t
/a
nt
i
c
i
pa
t
i
ono
fi
t
]
Di
s
c
r
e
t
i
onr
ec
ompr
omi
s
e
sw/t
hi
r
dpa
r
t
i
e
s
.
409.Offe
rt
oPay
Me
di
c
alEx
pe
ns
e
s
410.Pl
e
as
Topr
o
v
e
:l
i
a
bi
l
i
t
yf
o
ri
n
j
ur
y
411.Li
abi
l
i
t
y
I
ns
ur
anc
e
Butnopr
o
t
e
c
t
i
onf
o
rc
ol
l
a
t
e
r
a
ls
t
mt
s
.[
a
pol
o
gy]
Evi
de
nc
ea
g
a
i
ns
t i
na
dmi
s
s
i
bl
e[
c
i
vi
l
/c
r
i
m]
:
gu
i
l
t
yp
l
e
al
a
t
e
rwi
t
hd
r
a
wn
;no
l
oc
o
nt
e
n
de
r
epl
e
a
;
s
t
mt
.
dur
i
n
gpl
e
an
e
g
o
t
i
a
t
i
onsw/pr
os
e
c
ut
or
Toc
ompl
e
t
epa
r
t
i
a
la
c
c
ounto
fpl
e
adi
s
c
us
s
i
on; Me
z
z
anat
opl
e
ade
a
l
:g
oodf
a
i
t
hwa
i
v
e
ro
f410,
o
ri
np
e
r
j
ur
ypr
os
e
c
ut
i
oni
fs
t
mt
.i
sund
e
roa
t
h, pr
os
e
c
ut
orc
a
ni
mpe
a
c
h i
fh
et
e
s
t
i
fie
sdi
ffe
r
e
nt
l
y
i
nr
e
c
or
d,a
ndi
npr
e
s
e
nc
eofc
ouns
e
l
Topr
o
v
en
e
gl
i
g
e
nc
e
;wr
on
gf
ula
c
t
s
Fo
ra
no
t
he
rpur
pos
e
:wi
t
ne
s
sbi
a
s
;a
g
e
nc
y
;
o
wn
e
r
s
hi
p;c
ont
r
ol
404-406.CHARACTERPROPENSI
TY
(a) Character
(1) Character Evidence Prohibited. Evidence of person’s character or character trait is inadmissible to prove that, on a particular
occasion, a person acted in accordance with that character or trait
o Character propensity evidence comes in through specific acts, reputation, and opinion

MIMIKCOP Exceptions
o Not for character purpose: motive, intent, absence of mistake, identity, knowledge, common plan, opportunity, preparation—
different inferences for the jury to draw 404(b)

Effect on listener: to prove ’s reasonable & justifiable fear [i.e., victim’s violent character] (James)

Modus operandi: signature crime, where evidence that no other person could have committed crime (Trenkler)

Common plan/ narrative integrity: inextricably intertwined, similar criminal episodes (DeGeorge)

Doctrine of Chances: allows prosecutor to complete narrative as to commission of crime (Rex)

Consider risk of unfair prejudice (403)—evidence must be sufficient to support a finding

But no risk of unfair prejudice towards government, where defendant wants to present evidence to establish
identity of another defendant potentially responsible for crime (Stevens)
o
105 directs trial judge, at ’s request, to give limiting instruction; but if judge believes jury will not abide limiting instruction,
judge has discretion to exclude evidence subject to 403 [Zachowitz]

Other Exceptions [405 & 406]

Character is at issue 405(b) – very rare
Re
put
a
t
i
onFounda
t
i
on

When person’s character/ character trait is essential element of charge, claim, or defense, it may be proved by
(
1) W’
sf
a
mi
l
i
a
rw/’
sr
e
p.
specific instances of person’s conduct
i
nc
ommuni
t
y

Entrapment defense; truth in defamation; character in custody dispute; rebutting libel claim
(
2)  me
mbe
rofc
ommuni
t
y

Habit
406
–
rare
(
3)  ha
sg
e
ne
r
a
lr
e
p.a
mon
g
s
t

Evidence of person’s habit or organization’s routine practice admissible to prove that, on particular occasion,
a
ni
de
n
t
i
fia
bl
egr
oupof
pe
opl
ew/a
de
q
u
a
t
eba
s
i
st
o
person/ organization acted in accordance to that habit/ routine practice.
f
or
mopi
ni
ons

Admissible regardless of whether it is corroborated or whether there is eyewitness
(
4) W h
a
ss
ubs
t
a
n
t
i
a
lc
ont
a
c
t

Is practice so routine that it reliably predicts that [x] occurred this time?
w/c
ommuni
t
y

Must be innocuous behavior; closer habit comes to judgement, the more problematic it becomes
(2) Exceptions for defendant or victim in criminal case
(A) Defendant may offer (reputation or opinion) evidence of defendant’s pertinent trait, [general law-abidingness/ specific trait
Personal Opinion
relevant to conduct for which they are accused]
Foundation
W

If evidence is admitted, prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it (reputation, opinion, specific acts) [ opens the door]
has known subject
for
o Where  offers character witness [ opened the door] to provide reputation/ opinion testimony, prosecutor can ask
long enough to form
test character witness’ knowledge by asking about specific acts (Williamson)
reasonably reliable opinion
as to the trait in issue
(B) Defendant may offer (reputation or opinion) evidence of alleged victim’s pertinent trait, and if admitted, prosecutor may:
(i) offer (reputation, opinion, specific acts) evidence to rebut it; and
(ii) offer (reputation, opinion, specific acts) evidence of defendant’s same trait [trait must match]
Best Objection:
(C) In homicide case, prosecutor may offer evidence of alleged victim’s trait’s trait for peacefulness to rebut evidence that victim
Traits don’t match
was the first aggressor (if defendant alleges self-defense)
(3) Exceptions for Witness. Evidence of witness’ character admissible subject to 607, 608, 609
(b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts.
(1) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts Prohibited. Evidence of crime, wrong, or other act not admissible to prove person’s character in order
to show that, on particular occasion, that person acted in accordance with that character.
(2) Permitted Uses; Notice in Criminal Case. Evidence may be admissible for another purpose [motive, identity, absence of mistake,
intent, knowledge, opportunity, common scheme, plan/ preparation]
3
Ri
s
kt
h
a
tj
ur
ywi
l
lfindgui
l
tg
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y;f
o
rpr
e
v
e
nt
a
t
i
v
ej
us
t
i
c
e
;o
rf
orp
a
s
tb
a
da
c
t
s
To have evidence excluded argue it is character trait; to have it included, argue that it’s hobby
Downloaded by kurtis collins (collik9@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|12501682
607-609.I
MPEACHMENT
Thr
e
ewa
y
st
oi
mpe
ac
hawi
t
ne
s
s
:
(
1) Que
s
t
i
onwi
t
ne
s
s
’pe
r
c
e
p
t
i
on,
me
mor
y
,na
r
r
a
t
i
v
ea
c
c
ur
a
c
ya
bouti
nc
i
de
nti
nq
ue
s
t
i
on[
i
.
e
.
,
e
y
e
s
i
ght
,h
e
a
r
i
n
g
,pa
s
s
a
g
eoft
i
me
]

Nonc
ha
r
a
c
t
e
r
ba
s
e
di
mp
e
a
c
hme
nt
;e
xt
r
i
ns
i
ce
vi
de
nc
epe
r
mi
t
t
e
dbo
t
hi
ndi
r
e
c
t& c
r
os
s
e
x
a
mi
na
t
i
on
(
2) Que
s
t
i
onwi
t
ne
s
s
’v
e
r
s
i
onoft
r
ut
h/l
i
er
e
.t
hi
spa
r
t
i
c
ul
a
ri
nc
i
de
nt[
i
.
e
.
,i
nc
ons
i
s
t
e
nts
t
mt
.
,c
onfli
c
t
i
nge
vi
de
nc
e
,
bi
as
,
ac
c
e
pt
i
ngpl
e
ade
al
]

Nonc
ha
r
a
c
t
e
r
ba
s
e
di
mp
e
a
c
hme
nt
;e
xt
r
i
ns
i
ce
vi
de
nc
epe
r
mi
t
t
e
dbo
t
hi
ndi
r
e
c
t& c
r
os
s
e
x
a
mi
na
t
i
on
(
3) Que
s
t
i
onwi
t
ne
s
s
’c
ha
r
a
c
t
e
rpr
ope
ns
i
t
yt
ol
i
eunde
r404(
a)
(
2)
(
C)a
nd607609[
c
on
vi
c
t
i
on,p
r
i
ora
c
t
s
]

Cha
r
a
c
t
e
r
ba
s
e
di
mpe
a
c
hme
nt
;noe
xt
r
i
ns
i
ce
vi
de
nc
e[
e
x
c
e
pt609]
I
mpe
ac
hme
ntbyc
har
ac
t
e
rf
o
runt
r
ut
hf
ul
ne
s
s
:
607. Impeaching a Witness. Witness’ character can be attacked by either party
(
1) Ev
e
r
ywi
t
ne
s
sput
st
r
ut
hf
ul
ne
s
sa
ti
s
s
ue
.403
(
a)
(
3
)
(
2
)
E
i
t
h
e
r
p
a
r
t
y
m
a
y
a
t
t
a
c
k
W’
s
c
r
e
d
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
.
6
0
7
608. Witness. Impeachment by Evidence of Prior Acts
(
3) Cha
r
a
c
t
e
rf
o
runt
r
ut
h
f
ul
ne
s
sma
yb
er
a
i
s
e
db
y
(
a) Re
put
a
t
i
oni
nt
heCommuni
t
yorOpi
ni
onEvi
de
nc
e
.
r
e
put
a
t
i
on/opi
ni
one
vi
d
e
nc
e
.608
o Ei
t
he
rpa
r
t
yma
yoffe
r[
r
e
put
a
t
i
on/
opi
ni
on]e
vi
de
nc
eofW’
spe
r
t
i
ne
ntt
r
a
i
t[
unt
r
ut
hf
ul
ne
s
s
]
(
4) Cha
r
a
c
t
e
rf
o
rt
r
ut
h
f
ul
ne
s
s[
r
e
put
a
t
i
on/opi
ni
on]
o Oppone
ntma
yr
e
butw/[
r
e
put
a
t
i
on/
opi
ni
on]e
vi
de
nc
eofW’
spe
r
t
i
ne
ntt
r
a
i
t[
t
r
ut
hf
ul
ne
s
s
]e
vi
de
nc
ea
dmi
s
s
i
bl
eonl
ya
f
t
e
rc
r
e
di
bi
l
i
t
ya
t
t
a
c
k
e
d

But
,e
vi
de
n
c
eofbi
a
sdoe
sno
tq
ua
l
i
f
ya
sa
t
t
a
c
konwi
t
ne
s
s
’c
ha
r
a
c
t
e
r
[
no
tbi
a
s
/i
nc
ons
i
s
t
e
nts
t
mt
s
.
]608(
a)

Obj
e
c
t
i
ons
:c
ha
l
l
e
n
g
ede
pt
hofwi
t
ne
s
skn
o
wl
e
d
g
e
(5) Specificinstancesofdishonestconductmaybe
[
Whi
t
mor
e
,
t
oor
e
mo
t
e
,i
ns
uffic
i
e
ntt
oc
ons
t
i
t
ut
e“
c
ommuni
t
y
,
”i
.
e
.
,
t
o
wn,
ne
i
g
hbor
hood]i
nq
ui
r
e
di
nt
oonc
r
os
s
e
x
a
mi
na
t
i
on.608(
b)
(
b) Spe
c
i
ficI
ns
t
anc
e
sofc
onduc
t
.
o Ma
ya
s
ka
bouts
pe
c
i
fica
c
t
sofdi
s
hone
s
tc
onduc
tonc
r
os
s
e
x
a
mi
na
t
i
oni
fpr
oba
t
i
v
ef
orc
ha
r
a
c
t
e
roft
r
u
t
hf
ul
ne
s
s
/unt
r
ut
hf
ul
ne
s
s

Re
q
ui
r
e
sg
oodf
ai
t
hbas
i
s
;mus
tbepe
r
t
i
ne
ntt
ot
r
a
i
tofhone
s
t
y— g
e
ne
r
a
ll
a
wl
e
s
s
ne
s
s≠ c
ha
r
a
c
t
e
rf
ort
r
ut
hf
ul
ne
s
s

I
f t
ake
st
hes
t
and,
pr
os
e
c
ut
orc
a
na
s
kq
ue
s
t
i
ons[
“
on[
x]da
y
,
di
dy
oul
i
er
e
,
[
y]
,
”
]
;i
f s
a
y
s
,
“
Idon
’
tr
e
me
mbe
r
,
” pr
os
e
c
ut
or
mus
ta
c
c
e
pta
ns
we
r noe
x
t
r
i
ns
i
ce
vi
de
nc
et
oa
t
t
a
c
k/s
uppor
twi
t
ne
s
s
’
sc
ha
r
a
c
t
e
rf
ort
r
ut
hf
ul
ne
s
s

Ca
nno
ti
nt
r
oduc
ea
no
t
he
rwi
t
ne
s
s
’t
e
s
t
i
mo
n
y[
e
xt
r
i
n
s
i
ce
vi
de
nc
e
]t
oc
a
t
c
hwi
t
ne
s
s i
nl
i
e(
Pi
s
ar
i
)

I
f doe
sno
tt
aket
hes
t
and,
noe
vi
de
nc
eofpa
s
ts
pe
c
i
ficba
da
c
t
sunr
e
l
a
t
e
dt
os
pe
c
i
fici
n
s
t
a
nc
ea
ti
s
s
ue[
pr
ohi
bi
t
e
dby404/
405
]
609. Impeachment by Evidence of Criminal Conviction.
(1) Probative of truthfulness?
(
a
)I
nGe
ne
r
al
.
Toa
t
t
a
c
kwi
t
ne
s
s
’
sc
ha
r
a
c
t
e
rf
ort
r
ut
hf
ul
ne
s
sb
yc
r
i
mi
na
lc
on
vi
c
t
i
on
(2) Good faith basis for inquiry?
(
1) Forc
r
i
met
ha
twa
spuni
s
ha
bl
eb
yd
e
a
t
hori
mpr
i
s
onme
ntf
ormor
et
ha
noney
e
a
r
(
A)Mus
tbea
dmi
t
t
e
d,
i
nc
i
vi
lorc
r
i
mi
nalc
a
s
e
,whe
r
ewi
t
ne
s
si
sno
t –s
ubj
e
c
tt
o403 (3) 403 analysis?
Certified copy
of conviction
(
B)Mus
tbea
dmi
t
t
e
di
nc
r
i
mi
nalc
a
s
ewhe
r
ewi
t
ne
s
si
s –i
fpr
oba
t
i
v
ev
al
ueout
we
i
ghspr
e
j
udi
c
i
ale
ffe
c
t
(extrinsic

Fac
t
or
s
:(
i
)s
i
mi
l
a
r
i
t
ybe
t
we
e
npa
s
tc
r
i
me&c
ha
r
g
e
dc
r
i
me[
f
a
v
or
si
na
dmi
s
s
i
bi
l
i
t
yf
ors
i
mi
l
a
rc
r
i
me
s
]
;
evidence)
(
i
i
)na
t
ur
eofc
r
i
me
;(
i
i
i
)t
i
meofc
on
vi
c
t
i
on;(
i
v)i
mpor
t
a
n
c
eof t
e
s
t
i
mo
n
y
;(
v)c
e
nt
r
a
l
i
t
yofc
r
e
di
bi
l
i
t
yi
s
s
ue(
Br
e
we
r
)
admissible.
(
2) Fora
n
yc
r
i
mewhe
r
ee
l
e
me
nt
sofc
r
i
mei
n
v
ol
v
edi
s
hone
s
ta
c
t
/f
a
l
s
es
t
a
t
e
me
nt–manda
t
or
yadmi
s
s
i
on
o I
.
e
.pe
r
j
ur
y
,f
a
l
s
es
t
a
t
e
me
nt
s
,f
r
a
ud
,e
mbe
z
z
l
e
me
nt
,f
a
l
s
epr
e
t
e
ns
e
But details of
(
b
)
L
i
mi
t
o
n
E
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
A
f
t
e
r
1
0
Y
e
a
r
s
.
A
p
p
l
i
e
s
i
f
mo
r
e
t
h
a
n
1
0
y
e
a
r
s
h
a
s
p
a
s
s
e
d
s
i
nc
ewi
t
ne
s
sc
on
vi
c
t
i
onorr
e
l
e
a
s
ef
r
om c
onfine
me
nt
crime usually
[
whi
c
he
v
e
ri
sl
a
t
e
r
]Evi
de
nc
ei
sa
dmi
s
s
i
bl
eonl
yi
f
:
inadmissible.
(
1) Pr
oba
t
i
v
ev
a
l
ues
ub
s
t
a
nt
i
a
l
l
yout
we
i
ghspr
e
j
udi
c
i
a
le
ffe
c
t[
Re
v
e
r
s
e403]
,
a
nd
(
2) Re
a
s
ona
bl
eno
t
i
c
eofi
nt
e
ntt
ous
ee
vi
de
n
c
egi
v
e
n
(
c
) Effe
c
tofPar
don,
Annul
me
nt
,orCe
r
t
i
fic
a
t
i
onofRe
ha
bi
l
i
t
a
t
i
on.No
ta
dmi
s
s
i
bl
ei
f
:
(
1) Onfindi
n
gt
ha
tpe
r
s
oni
sr
e
ha
bi
l
i
t
a
t
e
d,
a
ndno
tc
on
vi
c
t
e
dofl
a
t
e
rc
r
i
mepuni
s
ha
bl
eb
ymi
n
.ofone
y
e
a
ri
mpr
i
s
onme
ntorde
a
t
h
(
2) Onfindi
n
gofi
nnoc
e
nc
e
(
d
) Juv
e
ni
l
eAdj
udi
c
a
t
i
on.
Evi
de
nc
ei
sa
dmi
s
s
i
bl
eonl
yi
f
(
1)c
r
i
mi
na
lc
a
s
e
;(
2)a
d
j
udi
c
a
t
i
onofwi
t
ne
s
so
t
he
rt
ha
n;(
3)c
on
vi
c
t
i
onf
ors
a
meoffe
ns
ewoul
dbea
dmi
s
s
i
bl
ef
ora
na
dul
t
;a
nd
(
4)a
dmi
t
t
i
n
ge
vi
de
nc
ei
sne
c
e
s
s
a
r
yt
of
a
i
r
l
yde
t
e
r
mi
negui
l
t
/i
nno
c
e
nc
e
(
e
) Pe
nde
nc
yofAppe
al
.Admi
s
s
i
bl
ee
v
e
ni
fa
pp
e
a
li
spe
ndi
n
g
.
Limitations to Appeal

Luc
e
,
whe
r
e doe
sno
tt
a
k
et
hes
t
a
nd,
be
c
a
us
eofpr
e
l
i
mi
na
r
yr
ul
i
n
gt
ha
tp
r
i
orc
on
vi
c
t
i
onwoul
dbea
dmi
t
t
e
d
, c
a
nno
ta
ppe
a
l

Ol
y
e
r
,
whe
r
e r
a
i
s
e
se
vi
de
nc
eondi
r
e
c
t
,t
of
ur
t
he
re
xpl
a
i
nt
hei
nf
o
.
, c
a
nno
ts
ub
s
e
q
ue
nt
l
ya
ppe
a
lt
hepr
e
j
udi
c
i
a
li
mpa
c
tofi
nf
o
. pr
o
vi
de
d
Prior Conviction
Felony
Punishable by death or more than 1 year
Other Witnesses
403 – probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of
unfair prejudice 609(a)(1)(A)
Criminal Defendant
50/50 Bal. probative value outweighed by unfair prejudice
[Brewer Factors] 609(1)(B)
Misdemeanor (punishable < 1 year)
Not admissible
Not admissible
Crimes of falsity (can be a misdemeanor)
Mandatory admission – no Rule 403 balancing test
Mandatory admission – no Rule 403 balancing test
Old (> 10 years ago)
“Reverse 403” –probative value has to substantially outweigh
the risk of unfair prejudice – 609(b)
“Reverse 403” –probative value has to substantially outweigh
the risk of unfair prejudice – 609(b)
Juvenile adjudication
Only if necessary for fair trial –highest standard– 609(d)
Not admissible – 609(d)
I
mpe
a
c
hme
nte
vi
de
n
t
i
a
r
yr
ul
e
sr
e
a
di
nl
i
ghtof612,
r
e
q
ui
r
i
n
gt
ha
tc
our
te
x
e
r
c
i
s
er
e
a
s
ona
bl
ec
ont
r
olt
opr
o
t
e
c
twi
t
ne
s
sf
r
omha
r
a
s
s
me
nta
ndunduee
mba
r
r
a
s
s
me
nt
.
Tor
e
but405/608 noe
xt
r
i
ns
i
ce
vi
de
nc
e
;mus
tt
ak
ean
s
we
rofwi
t
ne
s
s
Topr
o
v
e“
f
ora
no
t
he
rpur
pos
e
”
a
l
le
xt
r
i
ns
i
ce
vi
de
nc
ea
dmi
s
s
i
bl
es
ub
j
e
c
tt
o403[
unf
ai
rpr
e
j
udi
c
e
,
ne
e
dl
e
s
s
l
yc
umul
at
i
v
e
,
e
t
c
.
)
Topr
o
v
e[
r
e
l
e
v
a
ntma
t
t
e
ra
tt
r
i
a
l
]
a
l
le
xt
r
i
ns
i
ce
vi
de
nc
ea
dmi
s
s
i
bl
es
ub
j
e
c
tt
o403
Topr
l
a
t
e
r
a
lma
t
t
e
r
]
 noe
xt
r
i
ns
i
ce
vi
de
nc
eunl
e
s
si
nde
pe
nde
nt
l
yr
e
l
at
e
dt
oc
as
e
4ove[col
Downloaded by kurtis collins (collik9@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|12501682
801
(
a)
(
c
)
.HEARSAY
(
a
) St
a
t
e
me
nt
:or
a
la
s
s
e
r
t
i
on,wr
i
t
t
e
na
s
s
e
r
t
i
on,o
rnon
v
e
r
ba
lc
onduc
ti
ft
h
a
tp
e
r
s
oni
nt
e
nd
e
di
ta
sa
na
s
s
e
r
t
i
onb
yde
c
l
a
r
a
nt
(
b) De
c
l
a
r
a
nt
:pe
r
s
onwhoma
det
h
es
t
a
t
e
me
nt
(
c
) He
a
r
s
a
y
:s
t
a
t
e
me
ntt
ha
t
(
1) De
c
l
a
r
a
ntdoe
sno
tma
k
ewhi
l
et
e
s
t
i
f
yi
n
ga
tc
ur
r
e
ntt
r
a
i
lorpr
oc
e
e
di
n
g
;a
nd
(
2) Pa
r
t
yoffe
r
si
ne
vi
de
nc
et
opr
o
v
et
r
ut
hoft
h
ema
t
t
e
ra
s
s
e
r
t
e
d

Commone
x
a
mpl
e
st
h
a
ta
r
eno
the
a
r
s
a
y
o
I
mpe
a
c
hme
nt
:pr
i
ors
t
a
t
e
me
nt
s
—notus
e
df
ort
r
ut
ho
fma
t
t
e
r
—butt
ound
e
r
mi
newi
t
ne
s
sc
r
e
di
bi
l
i
t
y
o
Ve
r
ba
la
c
t
sofl
e
g
a
ls
i
gni
fic
a
nc
e
:ope
r
a
t
i
v
ea
c
t
sgi
vi
n
gr
i
s
et
ol
e
g
a
lc
ons
e
q
ue
nc
e
o
Effe
c
tonl
i
s
t
e
ne
r
/r
e
a
de
r
:i
.
e
.
,t
os
ho
wl
i
s
t
e
ne
rwa
sputonno
t
i
c
e
,ha
dc
e
r
t
a
i
nkno
wl
e
d
g
e
,be
ha
v
e
dr
e
a
s
ona
bl
y
,e
t
c
.
o
Ve
r
ba
lob
j
e
c
t
s
:i
.
e
.
,l
o
g
oont
r
uc
k,wr
i
t
i
n
gonmu
g
o
Ci
r
c
ums
t
a
nt
i
a
le
vi
d
e
nc
e
:t
e
s
t
i
mon
yoffe
r
e
dt
oe
s
t
a
bl
i
s
hc
l
os
ec
o
r
r
e
s
ponde
nc
ebe
t
we
e
nde
s
c
r
i
pt
i
ona
nda
c
t
u
a
la
ppe
a
r
a
nc
e(
Br
i
dg
e
)
HEARSAY
802: Hearsay is inadmissible unless permitted by federal statute, the Constitution, evidentiary rules, or Supreme court holding
805: Hearsay within hearsay is not excluded if each part of combined stmts. conforms w/ exception/ exclusion [start w/ inner layer, then outer layer]
801(
d)
(
1)
.HEARSAYEXCLUSI
ON
Judge determines whether exception/ exclusion applies as a preliminary question [104(a)]
Prior statement is not hearsay if:
Note: no personal knowledge requirement
(1) Declarant testifies at trial or hearing; and
Statement is made by a party
(2) Is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement; and

Counts even where witness has memory loss [“I don’t know/ remember”];  entitled to cross-x, but not to effective cross-x

But not where party refuses to testify for either side
(3) Statement is:
(A) Inconsistent prior statement

Does not need to be diametrically opposed; may include evasive answers memory loss, silence
Inconsistent Statement
o
But memory loss preliminary 104(a) question
(1) Testifies at trial/ hearing

If witness is feigning ignorance to avoid testifying inconsistent statement
(2) Subject to cross-x re. former stmt.

If witness does not remember not inconsistent statement

Made under oath in prior proceeding or deposition
(3) Prior inconsistent stmt. under oath
o
Generally trial, preliminary hearing or grand jury proceeding
o
But stmts. not under oath – for impeachment 613 [extrinsic evidence admissible, even if no opportunity to explain/ deny]
Consistent Statement
(B) Consistent prior statement
(1) Testifies at trial/ hearing

Must be consistent with present testimony
(2) Subject to cross-x re. former stmt.

Must be offered to rebut charge of recent fabrication or improper motive
o
Includes express or implied charge of fabrication/ improper motive
(3) To rebut charge of fabrication w/
o
Timing requirement: prior statement must be prior to “influence of motive” (Tome)
consistent stmt. before influence of motive

Must be offered to rehabilitate declarant’s credibility after attack on any other grounds
or to rehabilitate credibility on other grounds
o
Timing requirement: prior statement can be made at any time
Statement for Identification
(C) Statement for purposes of identification
(1) Testifies at trial/ hearing

Statement made by witness after perceiving the subject
(2) Subject to cross-x re. former stmt.

No oath requirement for statement to be used for truth of the matter
(3) Prior stmt. to identify—no oath req.

Police sketches/ composite permitted, but may require cross-x of eyewitness & police artist

Wi
t
ne
s
ss
t
mt
.t
ooffic
e
r
,t
h
e
nt
e
s
t
i
fie
sdi
ffe
r
e
nt
l
ya
tt
r
i
a
l[
i
.
e
.
,“
Idon
’
tkno
w”
]
,s
a
t
i
s
fie
spr
e
l
i
mi
na
r
yr
e
q
ui
r
e
me
nt[
t
e
s
t
i
mon
ys
ub
j
e
c
tt
oc
r
os
s
x]
—
offic
e
rc
a
nno
wt
e
s
t
i
f
yr
e
.wi
t
ne
s
s
’pr
i
ors
t
a
t
e
me
nt
,i
de
nt
i
f
yi
n
g,f
ort
r
ut
hoft
h
ema
t
t
e
r
801(
d)
(
2)
.HEARSAYEXCLUSI
ON
Pr
i
ors
t
a
t
e
me
nti
sno
the
a
r
s
a
yi
f
:
Judge determines whether exception/ exclusion applies as a preliminary question [104(a)]
(
1) Offe
r
e
da
g
a
i
ns
tp
a
r
t
y
;a
nd
Note: no personal knowledge requirement
(
2) St
a
t
e
me
nti
s
Statement is made by a party
(
A) Par
t
ySt
a
t
e
me
nt
:i
ne
i
t
h
e
ri
ndi
vi
dua
lorr
e
pr
e
s
e
nt
a
t
i
v
ec
a
pa
c
i
t
y
;or

Re
pr
e
s
e
nt
a
t
i
v
ec
a
pa
c
i
t
yme
a
ns
:
o
Pa
r
e
ntf
orc
hi
l
d;e
x
e
c
u
t
orofe
s
t
a
t
ef
ord
e
c
e
de
nt
;gua
r
di
a
nf
orme
nt
a
l
l
yi
nc
ompe
t
e
nt
(
B) Adopt
e
dAdmi
s
s
i
on:Pa
r
t
yha
sma
ni
f
e
s
t
e
da
na
do
pt
i
onorbe
l
i
e
fi
ni
t
st
r
ut
h;or

St
a
t
e
me
ntwa
she
a
r
da
ndunde
r
s
t
ood?

Pa
r
t
ya
tl
i
be
r
t
yt
or
e
s
pond?
o
I
nc
r
i
mi
nalc
as
e
,s
i
l
e
nc
ei
nc
us
t
od
yi
sno
ta
dopt
i
v
ea
dmi
s
s
i
on(
s
ub
s
t
a
nt
i
v
e
l
yorf
ori
mpe
a
c
hme
nt
)(
Do
y
l
e
)

Butpr
e
Mi
r
a
ndawa
r
ni
n
g,s
i
l
e
nc
ei
sa
do
pt
i
v
ea
dmi
s
s
i
on(
s
ub
s
t
a
n
t
i
v
e
l
yorf
o
ri
mpe
a
c
hme
nt
)(
Fl
e
t
c
he
r
)

Butde
f
e
nda
nti
sno
ti
nc
us
t
od
y
,s
i
l
e
nc
ec
a
nb
eus
e
dt
oi
mpe
a
c
hc
r
i
mi
na
lde
f
e
nd
a
nt
’
sc
r
e
di
bi
l
i
t
y(
J
e
nki
ns
)

Ci
r
c
ums
t
a
nc
e
sc
a
l
l
e
df
orr
e
s
pons
e
?

Pa
r
t
yf
a
i
l
e
dt
or
e
s
pond?
(
C) Aut
hor
i
z
e
dRe
pr
e
s
e
nt
a
t
i
v
eSt
a
t
e
me
nt
:a
ut
hor
i
z
e
dp
a
r
t
yt
oma
k
es
t
a
t
e
me
ntc
onc
e
r
ni
n
gt
ha
ts
ub
j
e
c
t

St
a
t
e
me
ntc
annotb
eonl
ye
vi
de
nc
eofa
ut
hor
i
t
y(
Bour
j
ai
l
y)
(
D) Ag
e
nt
/Empl
o
y
e
eSt
at
e
me
nt
:(
butno
ti
nd
e
pe
nd
e
ntc
ont
r
a
c
t
o
r
)c
onc
e
r
ni
n
gma
t
t
e
rwi
t
hi
ns
c
op
eofe
mpl
o
yme
ntdur
i
n
gc
our
s
eofe
mpl
o
yme
nt
;or

St
a
t
e
me
ntc
annotb
eonl
ye
vi
de
nc
eofa
ut
hor
i
t
y(
Bour
j
ai
l
y)
(
1) Ag
e
nt
/e
mpl
o
y
e
e
?–doe
sno
ti
nc
l
udei
nde
p
e
nde
ntc
ont
r
a
c
t
or
s
(
2) St
a
t
e
me
ntma
dei
ns
c
opeofr
e
l
a
t
i
ons
hi
p?
(
3) St
a
t
e
me
ntma
dedur
i
n
gc
our
s
eofr
e
l
a
t
i
ons
hi
p?
(
E) Coc
ons
pi
r
a
t
orSt
a
t
e
me
nt
:dur
i
n
gc
our
s
ea
ndi
nf
ur
t
he
r
a
nc
eofc
ons
pi
r
a
c
y

St
a
t
e
me
ntc
annotb
eonl
ye
vi
de
nc
eofc
ons
pi
r
a
c
y(
Bour
j
ai
l
y)
(
1) De
c
l
a
r
a
nta
nda
no
t
he
rc
ons
pi
r
e
d?
5
Downloaded by kurtis collins (collik9@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|12501682
(
2) St
a
t
e
me
ntma
dedur
i
n
gc
our
s
eofc
ons
pi
r
a
c
y?

Cons
pi
r
a
c
yi
so
v
e
rwhe
nd
e
c
l
a
r
a
nts
pe
a
kswi
t
hpol
i
c
e
(
3) St
a
t
e
me
ntma
dei
nf
ur
t
he
r
a
nc
eo
fc
ons
pi
r
a
c
y?
6
Downloaded by kurtis collins (collik9@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|12501682
803.HEARSAYEXCEPTI
ON
Ex
c
e
pt
i
onsa
g
a
i
ns
the
a
r
s
a
y
,r
e
g
a
r
dl
e
s
so
fwhe
t
he
rd
e
c
l
a
r
a
nti
sa
v
a
i
l
a
bl
ea
sawi
t
ne
s
s
Note: must raise hearsay exception at trial;
(
1) Pr
e
s
e
nt
Se
ns
eI
mpr
e
s
s
i
on.
cannot be raised for first time on appeal

De
s
c
r
i
bi
n
gore
xpl
a
i
ni
n
ge
v
e
nt
/
c
ondi
t
i
on[
a
n
yt
opi
c
]a
t
/i
mme
di
a
t
e
l
ya
f
t
e
rd
e
c
l
a
r
a
ntpe
r
c
e
i
v
e
di
t
(
2) Ex
c
i
t
e
dUt
t
e
r
anc
e
.

Re
l
a
t
i
n
gt
os
t
a
r
t
l
i
n
ge
v
e
ntorc
ondi
t
i
on;ma
d
eunde
rs
t
r
e
s
so
re
x
c
i
t
e
me
ntc
a
us
e
db
ye
v
e
nto
rc
ondi
t
i
on

Butnoi
nt
e
r
r
og
a
t
i
on;i
nt
e
r
r
u
pt
spur
ee
xpr
e
s
s
i
onsund
e
r803
(
2)
(
3) The
nExi
s
t
i
ngMe
nt
al
,Emo
t
i
onal
,orPhy
s
i
c
alCondi
t
i
on.

Appl
i
e
sf
orde
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
onso
fho
wde
c
l
a
r
a
ntf
e
e
l
sa
sh
et
a
l
ks

Butnos
t
mt
.ba
s
e
donp
a
s
ts
t
a
t
e
me
ntorc
on
v
e
r
s
a
t
i
onorp
a
s
te
v
e
nt(
Hi
l
l
mon)–nopas
tt
e
ns
e
!

Butnos
t
mt
.ofme
mor
yorbe
l
i
e
ft
opr
o
v
ef
a
c
tr
e
me
mbe
r
e
do
rbe
l
i
e
v
e
d(
She
par
d)

Appl
i
e
sf
ord
e
c
l
a
r
a
nt
’
sl
a
t
e
rc
onduc
t

I
nt
e
ntt
odo[
x]i
spr
oba
t
i
v
et
ha
t[
x]oc
c
ur
r
e
d(
Hi
l
l
mon)–butnotwh
e
r
ei
n
v
ol
vi
n
goft
hi
r
dp
a
r
t
y[
pe
r
s
onalkno
wl
e
dg
ei
s
s
ue
]
(
4) Me
di
c
alDi
agnos
i
so
rTr
e
a
t
me
nt
.

I
nc
l
ude
sme
di
c
a
lhi
s
t
or
y,pa
s
t
/pr
e
s
e
nts
ympt
oms
/s
e
ns
a
t
i
ons
;i
nc
e
pt
i
on/c
a
us
e–p
e
r
t
i
ne
ntt
odi
a
gnos
i
sort
r
e
a
t
me
nt

Re
q
ui
r
e
sp
e
r
s
onalkno
wl
e
dg
e–ma
yt
hi
nk
,notk
no
wc
a
us
e
,buti
fs
ymp
t
omsr
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
yf
a
mi
l
i
a
r
,804(
4
)a
ppl
i
e
s

I
nc
l
ude
ss
t
mt
s
.o
fc
aus
ebutnotf
aul
t–c
a
r
v
es
t
mt
s
.t
oe
x
c
l
udewhodi
di
t

Ma
d
eb
yi
ndi
vi
dua
l/
a
no
t
he
r
–i
nc
l
ude
ss
t
mt
s
.ma
det
ononM.
D./t
hi
r
dpa
r
t
yf
orpu
r
pos
eoft
r
e
a
t
me
nt

Buts
t
a
t
e
me
ntb
a
c
kf
r
omdoc
t
orma
ynotq
u
a
l
i
f
yunde
r803(
4)
,d
e
pe
ndsonj
ur
i
s
di
c
t
i
on

Di
s
t
i
n
gui
s
hb
e
t
we
e
ndua
lr
ol
e
s
;t
wop
a
r
tt
e
s
t(
I
r
ons
he
l
l
)–t
r
e
a
t
i
n
gdoc
t
orc
a
ns
e
r
v
ea
se
xpe
r
t
,butno
ti
de
a
lb/
cofdu
a
lr
ol
e
(
1) De
c
l
a
r
a
ntmo
t
i
v
ec
ons
i
s
t
e
ntwi
t
hpur
pos
ef
ordi
a
gnos
i
so
rt
r
e
a
t
me
nt
?[
pr
obl
e
ma
t
i
cwi
t
hy
oun
gc
hi
l
dr
e
n]
t
a
t
e
me
ntb
yph
y
s
i
c
i
a
n/doc
t
or
?
(
2) Re
a
s
ona
bl
er
e
l
i
a
nc
eons
(
5) Re
c
or
de
dRe
c
ol
l
e
c
t
i
on.
612. Refreshing Recollection.

Doc
ume
ntorwr
i
t
i
n
ga
dmi
t
t
e
di
ns
t
e
adofwi
t
ne
s
s
’t
e
s
t
i
mon
y

Distinguished from recorded recollection
o
Re
a
di
nt
or
e
c
or
d;a
dmi
t
t
e
da
se
xhi
bi
tonl
ya
tr
e
q
ue
s
tofoppos
i
n
gpa
r
t
y

Not limited to writing or documents
o
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
l
yr
e
q
ui
r
e
dt
ofir
s
tt
r
yr
e
f
r
e
s
hi
n
gr
e
c
ol
l
e
c
t
i
on

Does not come in as exhibit

St
r
i
c
t
l
yc
ons
t
r
ue
dr
ul
e
,r
e
q
ui
r
e
st
ha
twi
t
ne
s
ss
t
a
t
ea
l
lt
hr
e
ee
l
e
me
nt
s
:

Does not trigger hearsay rules
(
1) La
c
kspr
e
s
e
ntr
e
c
ol
l
e
c
t
i
ont
ot
e
s
t
i
f
ya
de
q
u
a
t
e
l
y/c
ompl
e
t
e
l
y
?

Attorney takes back the doc/ thing;
(
2) Re
c
or
dr
e
fle
c
t
sfir
s
t
ha
ndkno
wl
e
d
g
ewi
t
ne
s
sonc
eha
d
?
witness testifies from personal
/
a
dopt
e
dr
e
c
or
dwhi
l
ekno
wl
e
d
g
ewa
sf
r
e
s
hi
nme
mor
y
?
(
3) Wi
t
ne
s
sma
d
e
knowledge
(
6) Bus
i
ne
s
sRe
c
or
ds
.

Other side has opportunity to evaluate it
(
A) Re
c
or
dma
d
ea
torne
a
rt
i
meb
ype
r
s
onwi
t
hkno
wl
e
d
g
e
?
(
B) Re
c
or
dk
e
pti
nr
e
gul
a
rc
our
s
eofbus
i
ne
s
s
?
(
C) Re
c
or
dwa
sr
e
gul
a
rpr
a
c
t
i
c
eoft
ha
ta
c
t
i
vi
t
y?
(
D) Condi
t
i
onss
a
t
i
s
fie
db
yc
us
t
odi
a
n
’
st
e
s
t
i
mon
yo
rc
e
r
t
i
fic
a
t
i
on[
902(
11)
,c
e
r
t
i
fie
ddome
s
t
i
cr
e
c
o
r
dofr
e
gul
a
r
l
yc
o
nduc
t
e
da
c
t
i
vi
t
y]
(
E) Oppone
ntdoe
sno
ts
ho
wi
nf
or
ma
t
i
ono
rme
t
hodofpr
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
ont
obeunt
r
us
t
wor
t
h
y?
(
i
) Ti
me
l
i
ne
s
so
fi
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
on
(
i
i
) Spe
c
i
a
ls
ki
l
l
/e
xpe
r
i
e
nc
eofo
ffic
i
a
l
twha
tl
e
v
e
l
(
i
i
i
) He
a
r
i
n
ghe
l
d;a
(
i
v) Mo
t
i
v
a
t
i
ona
lc
onc
e
r
ns
;i
.
e
.
,i
mpe
ndi
n
gl
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
on(
“
dr
i
ppi
n
gwi
t
hmo
t
i
v
a
t
i
ont
omi
s
r
e
pr
e
s
e
nt
”Pal
me
r
)

Pa
r
t
yc
ur
e
she
a
r
s
a
ys
t
mt
.b
yv
e
r
i
fic
a
t
i
on[
c
he
c
kdr
i
v
e
r
’
sl
i
c
e
ns
e
,e
t
c
.
]
;i
nne
rhe
a
r
s
a
ys
t
mt
.i
nc
o
r
por
a
t
e
di
ne
mpl
o
y
e
e
’
ss
t
mt
.(
Vi
gne
a
u)
(
7) Abs
e
nc
eofBus
i
ne
s
sRe
c
or
ds
.Tos
ho
wnonoc
c
ur
r
e
nc
eo
rnone
xi
s
t
e
nc
e[
i
.
e
.
,a
b
s
e
nc
eofp
e
r
mi
t
st
os
ho
wl
a
c
kofr
e
c
or
d]
(
8) Publ
i
cRe
c
or
ds
.
(
A) Thr
e
et
ype
so
fr
e
c
or
ds
(
i
) Re
c
or
dorpubl
i
cs
t
a
t
e
me
ntr
e
g
a
r
di
n
go
ffic
e
’
si
nt
e
r
nalac
t
i
vi
t
i
e
s
;o
r
hor
i
z
e
dr
e
por
t
(
i
i
) Ma
t
t
e
rob
s
e
r
v
e
db
ypubl
i
ce
mpl
o
y
e
ei
naut

Us
er
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
on—Ma
yno
tbeus
e
da
g
a
i
ns
t i
nc
r
i
mi
na
lc
a
s
eb
yl
a
we
nf
or
c
e
me
nt[
a
n
y
on
ea
l
i
gn
e
dw/pr
os
e
c
ut
i
on]

Butma
yb
eus
e
dwhe
r
epol
i
c
eo
ffic
e
ri
sa
c
t
i
n
gi
ns
c
opeofus
u
a
ldut
ywh
e
r
et
h
e
r
ei
sdut
yt
or
e
por
t
(
i
i
i
) Fa
c
t
ua
lfindi
n
g
sb
ya
naut
hor
i
z
e
di
nv
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
on

Re
c
or
dma
yi
nc
l
udee
v
a
l
ua
t
i
v
ep
a
r
t
sofr
e
c
or
d[
nodi
ffe
r
e
nt
i
a
t
i
onbe
t
we
e
nf
a
c
t
,opi
ni
on,orc
onc
l
us
i
on](
Be
e
c
hAi
r
c
r
af
t
)

Pr
o
vi
de
dt
ha
t
:(
a
)b
a
s
e
donf
a
c
t
ua
li
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
on;a
nd(
b)s
a
t
i
s
f
yr
ul
er
e
q
ui
r
e
me
ntf
ort
r
us
t
wor
t
hi
ne
s
s

Pe
r
s
onde
c
i
di
n
gopi
ni
onma
yl
ooka
ti
na
dmi
s
s
i
bl
ehe
a
r
s
a
y—a
sl
on
ga
sa
ut
hor
i
z
e
dt
oma
k
ef
a
c
t
ua
lfindi
n
g

Us
er
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
on—Ma
yno
tbeus
e
da
g
a
i
ns
t i
nc
r
i
mi
na
lc
a
s
e

Re
c
or
dc
a
nno
tb
eoffe
r
e
di
nl
i
e
uofpol
i
c
eoffic
e
r
’
st
e
s
t
i
mon
y;wewa
ntc
r
os
s
e
x
a
mi
na
t
i
on

Butr
e
c
o
r
dc
a
nb
ea
dmi
t
t
e
da
g
ai
ns
tt
h
eg
o
v
e
r
nme
nt
(
B) No
ta
dmi
s
s
i
bl
ewhe
r
et
r
us
t
wor
t
hi
ne
s
sl
a
c
ki
n
g;br
oa
dl
yc
ons
t
r
ue
df
a
c
t
or
s
(
i
) Ti
me
l
i
ne
s
sofi
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
on
(
i
i
) Spe
c
i
a
ls
ki
l
lore
xp
e
r
i
e
nc
eofo
ffic
i
a
l
(
i
i
i
) Whe
t
he
rhe
a
r
i
n
gwa
she
l
d(
no
ts
t
r
i
c
tr
e
q
ui
r
e
me
nt
)
(
i
v) Pos
s
i
bl
emo
t
i
v
a
t
i
ona
lpr
obl
e
ms(
i
.
e
.
,wr
i
t
t
e
ni
na
nt
i
c
i
pa
t
i
onofl
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
on)

Ov
e
r
l
apwi
t
hbus
i
ne
s
sr
e
c
or
dse
xc
e
pt
i
on— c
a
nno
tus
ebus
i
ne
s
sr
e
c
or
de
x
c
e
pt
i
ont
os
up
e
r
s
e
depubl
i
cr
e
c
o
r
de
x
c
e
pt
i
ona
g
a
i
ns
tc
r
i
m. [
i
.
e
.
,Oa
t
s
,
c
he
mi
s
tr
e
por
ti
na
dmi
s
s
i
bl
ea
g
a
i
ns
tc
r
i
mi
na
l whe
r
ec
he
mi
s
tun
a
v
a
i
l
a
bl
ef
o
rc
r
os
s
e
x
a
mi
na
t
i
on]
o
Buti
fr
e
por
ti
sg
e
ne
r
a
t
e
di
nr
e
gul
a
rc
our
s
eofbus
i
ne
s
s
,r
e
c
or
di
sa
dmi
s
s
i
bl
e
—e
v
e
na
g
a
i
ns
tc
r
i
mi
na
l

Rout
i
ne
,nonadv
e
r
s
ar
i
alr
e
c
or
dsadmi
s
s
i
bl
e–pr
e
p
a
r
e
dr
e
g
a
r
dl
e
s
sofwr
on
g
doi
n
g

Ha
y
e
s
,I
RSr
e
por
t
sf
e
l
ls
q
u
a
r
e
l
ywi
t
hi
nt
hebus
i
ne
s
sr
e
c
or
de
x
c
e
p
t
i
on
(
10)Abs
e
nc
eofPubl
i
cRe
c
or
ds
:(
1
)Te
s
t
i
mon
y/c
e
r
t
i
fic
a
t
i
onund
e
rRul
e902[
s
e
l
f
a
ut
h
e
nt
i
c
a
t
i
n
gdoc
ume
nt
]t
ha
tadi
l
i
g
e
nts
e
a
r
c
hf
a
i
l
e
dt
odi
s
c
l
os
eapubl
i
c
r
e
c
or
da
nd(
2)i
fc
r
i
mi
nalc
as
e
,
no
t
i
c
ei
sr
e
q
ui
r
e
d
No
t
e
:Doubl
ehe
a
r
s
a
y
.805

Me
di
c
a
lRe
c
or
ds
Judge determines whether exception/ exclusion applies as a preliminary question [104(a)],

Bus
i
ne
s
sRe
c
or
ds
and whether declarant has personal knowledge [602] under conditional relevance [104(b)]

Publ
i
cRe
c
or
ds
911Tr
a
ns
c
r
i
pt
:i
fma
c
hi
ner
e
c
or
di
n
g no
the
a
r
s
a
y
7
 Recordedrecollection:ifW failstorecall
Downloaded by kurtis collins (collik9@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|12501682
804.HEARSAYEXCEPTI
ON
Exceptions against hearsay when declarant is available as a witness
(a) Unavailability [preliminary question under 104(a)]

Privilege?

Refusal to testify?

Declarant will not testify for either side—despite threat of contempt

Declarant may subject to cross-examination—but forgetful of underlying events

Lacks memory regarding subject matter?

Death/ incapacity?

Unable to procure via reasonable means?
Note: must raise hearsay exception at trial; cannot
be raised for first time on appeal
Judge determines whether exception/ exclusion applies as a preliminary question [104(a)],
and whether declarant has personal knowledge [602] under conditional relevance [104(b)]
(b)
Exceptions
(1) Former Testimony

Statement given in former proceeding (not limited to judicial ones) under oath?
Former Testimony
o Includes: depositions, preliminary hearings, administrative hearings, but not grand jury
(1) Unavailable

Prior opportunity for cross-examination with similar motive?
(2) Stmt. under oath
o Civil: adverse party or “predecessor in interest” [i.e., corporate merger]
(3) Prior opp. for cross-x

T1 [criminal] and T2 [civil], judge will likely find similar motive

Motive at pre-trial hearing/ suppression hearing not similar for actual trial (Duenas)
o Criminal: generally requires defendant had prior opportunity for cross-examination

T1 [civil w/ high damages] and T2 [criminal misdemeanor], judge may find similar motive

No similar motive if defendant stands to lose time in T2
(2) Dying Declaration
Dying Declaration

Requires declarant have personal knowledge
(1) Unavailable
o Cannot be speculative (Shepard)
(2) Personal knowledge (not speculative)

Must be homicide or civil case
(3) For homicide/ civil case (not criminal)
o Not criminal case
(4) Regarding cause/ circumstances

Regarding cause or circumstances of impending death
(5) Must be imminent

Must be imminent
(3) Statement Against Interest

Against declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interest at the time the it was made
Statement Against Interest
o Proprietary interest or financial interest
(1) Unavailable
o Civil or criminal liability (limited ability to manage affairs in jail)
(2) Against pecuniary/ proprietary interest
o But not reputation (except in CA); but if reputation tied to financial interest
(not reputation)
(3) If criminal— corroborating circ.

If exposing declarant to criminal liability requires corroborating circumstances
o Timing and circumstances under which statement was made
(4) Carve neutral/ exculpatory stmt.

Motive to lie?

Whether declarant repeated statement? Under what contexts?

Party/ parties to whom statement was made?

Relationship between declarant and opponent of evidence?

Nature and strength of independent evidence?

Requires carving neutral or exculpatory collateral statements (Williamson)
o Carving required to exclude conduct of another; no exculpatory statements
(6) Forfeiture by Wrongdoing

Party engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing?

Where wrongdoing was intended to and did procure unavailability of witness

Judge determines whether forfeiture occurred by preponderance of the evidence. 104(a)
807.RESI
DUALEXCEPTI
ON

Hearsay stmt. not excluded, even if statement is not covered by 803/ 804, if:
(1) Statement has circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness
(2) Offered as evidence of material fact
(3) More probative than any other evidence available through reasonable efforts
(4) Admitting it will serve interests of justice
o Near miss theory

Dallas Cnty., ancient doc. [necessity, reliability, contemporaneous reporting,
chain of custody preserved]

Laster business record, but custodian lacked sufficient knowledge
[necessity and indicia of reliability]
8
Downloaded by kurtis collins (collik9@gmail.com)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness?
Evidence of material fact?
More probative than other evidence?
Serves interest of justice?
Proper notice given?
Court has discretion to admit evidence
[if necessity & reliability] under residual exception
But, if criminal defendant, declarant’s testimony is
required under confrontation clause. Crawford
lOMoARcPSD|12501682
(5) Adequate notice to adversary of intent to use [including name and address of declarant]

Where evidence has necessity and indicia of reliability, trial court has discretion to admit evidence under Residual Exception
9
Downloaded by kurtis collins (collik9@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|12501682
CONFRONTATI
ONCLAUSE





Out-of-court statement offered for TOMA?
o Firmly rooted exception or exclusion? Increased reliability (Roberts); but if no hearsay no confrontation analysis
o Residual exception? May be admissible under hearsay, but barred under confrontation clause if
criminal case (Wright)
6th Amendment right to confrontation
Criminal case?
(1) Hearsay Exception/ Exclusion
Not applicable for civil cases or against prosecution in criminal case
(2) Criminal. Against criminal ,
Opportunity for cross-examination? (Green)
not civil or against prosecution
(3) Opportunity for crosso Declarant present, testifies at current trial, responds to questions no confrontation issue
examination, or prior opp. w/
o Prior stmt. under oath, subject to cross-x with similar motive no confrontation issue
similar motive
Testimonial? (Crawford)
(4) Non-testimonial statement

Non-testimonial statements
a.
Casual remark; overheard stmt.
o Casual remarks to acquaintances; off-hand statement overheard
b. Firmly rooted exceptions
i. Coconspirator statement
o Statements in furtherance of conspiracy
ii.
Dying declaration
o Some business records
iii. Some business records

Generally not testimonial; produced for admin. purposes, not to establish/ prove fact
(5) Testimonial statement

Police send sample likely testimonial; tests unrelated to police likely not testimonial
a.
Thomas: formalized stmt.
[affidavit, depo, former trial]
o Statements made to police during ongoing emergency
b. Primary Purpose Test

Testimonial statements
i. Past or present event?
o Testimony at preliminary hearing, grand jury, or former trial
ii. Crim. Investigation or
o Statement to police during course of interrogation in anticipation of future charges/ litigation
ongoing emergency?
o Stmt. in forensic report (Drug test/ BAC) often testimonial –not mechanically-produced test
iii. Level of formality?
iv. Declarant’s intent;

Lab technician that produced test must testify (Melendez-Diaz)
investigator’s intent?

Surrogate lab technician (Bullcoming) problematic; but some courts permit the supervisor
c.
Kennedy: reliability & necessity
—where lab technician unavailable—to testify
[case law – plurality]
o Stmt. in DNA test (Williams)—expert relying on underlying lab report nontestimonial
(6) Forfeiture by wrongdoing

Spectrum of analysis
o Thomas’ formalized requirement for testimonial statement

Statement under oath, former trial/ hearing, deposition, affidavit, police precinct questioning, etc.
Note: for forensics:
o Primary purpose test, Footnote 6, Bullcoming
No primary purpose test
(1) Describes past events (likely testimonial) or present events happening (likely not testimonial)
necessary; cite to case law

Objectively, what was the victim’s intent?

Hammon, statement subsequent to separation of parties in fistfight, testimonial

Bryant, statement made after gas station shooting, non-testimonial
(1) For criminal investigation (likely testimonial) or to resolve ongoing emergency (likely not testimonial)?

Objectively, what was the police’s intent?

Were there weapons deployed? [i.e., Hammon, fists; Brault, knives; Bryant, guns]

What is the medical condition of the victim?
(2) Level of formality at which statement was exchanged?

Look at the type of questions asked and the location of the questioning
o Kennedy et al. return to reliability and necessity doctrine

Even if stmt. is testimonial, well-established hearsay exclusion/ exception info. may come in as reliable/ necessary;
but
carving would be required [see above analysis]
Forfeiture by wrongdoing?
o If  forfeits confrontation rights by misconduct to prevent witness from testifying
 Cycle of abuse: while  did not kill victim with the primary purpose of preventing her testimony, the 911 call is admissible
to prove cycle of abuse was intended to prevent victim from seeking help (Giles)
 What other evidence is available? How badly do we need this evidence?
BRUTONDOCTRI
NE
In criminal prosecutions where joint trial (Bruton) – limiting instruction insufficient

Was there a conspiracy? Did co-defendant make a stmt. implicating co-defendant? And refuses to testify? [i.e., 5th Amendment]

Cruz, interlocking admissions [by both ] still presents Bruton problem

Marsh, but where stmts. carved—to avoid implicating co-defendant—no Bruton problem

Gray, but redaction—[delete], [delete], and [delete]—still presents Bruton problem
o But carving stmt. can fundamentally change crime charged [i.e., gang requires multiple persons]
o And redaction may change nature of confession [i.e., using non-descriptive terms]

Overly sanitizing the stmt. may undermine credibility because stmt. is carved to exclude names
To avoid: (1) severed trials; (2) separate juries; (3) testimony by confessing accomplice; (4) bench trial; (5) admissibility of stmt. against non-maker
COMPULSORYPROCESSCLAUSE
th
Criminal  has right to obtain witnesses in his favor (6 Amendment) and due process (14th Amendment)
10
Downloaded by kurtis collins (collik9@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|12501682


Chambers, cannot violate  right meaningful opportunity to present complete defense via application of hearsay rule
o Look for pervasive assurance of trustworthiness— special indicia of reliability
Holmes, with criminal defendant, we must always consider whether the application of hearsay rule is arbitrary/ capricious
701.OPI
NI
ONTESTI
MONYBYLAYWI
TNESS
When  prevented opportunity to meaningful defense [denied introduction of evidence], Constitution may override Evidentiary Rules.
(1) Requires first-hand personal knowledge— but can be fact, observation, opinion [i.e., tall, angry, intoxicated, etc.]
(2) If a witness is not testifying as expert, testimony is limited toL
(a) Testimony rationally based on witness’ perception
(b) Testimony that is helpful to clearly understanding witness testimony or determining fact at issue
(c) Testimony that is not scientific, technical, or specialized [702] — but can be particularized knowledge [opinion based on everyday life]
702
705.OPI
NI
ONTESTI
MONYBYEXPERTWI
TNESS
702.
Te
s
t
i
monybyExpe
r
tWi
t
ne
s
s
(1) Notice
Wi
t
ne
s
si
sq
ua
l
i
fie
da
se
xpe
r
tb
ykno
wl
e
d
g
e
,s
ki
l
l
,e
xpe
r
i
e
nc
e
,t
r
a
i
ni
n
g,
ore
duc
a
t
i
on (2) Proper Qualifications. Knowledge/ still. experience/ training/ edu. 702
(3) Proper Topic & Fit. Topic beyond knowledge of jurors. 702/ 704
t
e
s
t
i
f
yi
nf
or
m ofopi
ni
on/o
t
he
r
wi
s
e[
ma
yt
a
k
ef
ur
t
he
rs
t
e
pt
odr
a
wi
n
f
e
r
e
nc
e
]i
f
:
a.
Cannot usurp role of judge
(
a
) Expe
r
t
’
ss
c
i
e
n
t
i
fic
,
t
e
c
hni
c
a
l
,
oro
t
he
rs
pe
c
i
a
l
i
z
e
dkno
wl
e
d
g
ebe
t
t
e
r

No opinion re. legal rule/ standard
e
xpl
a
i
nst
hee
vi
de
nc
eorf
a
c
ti
ni
s
s
ue
b.
Must help jury, but not usurp jury

Can give opinion re. ultimate issue

Pr
ope
rTe
s
t
i
mon
y(
i
.
e
.
,s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
)

Testimony re. polygraph test—usurps jury

I
mpr
ope
rTe
s
t
i
mon
y(
i
.
e
.
,c
ommonkno
wl
e
d
g
e
;a
ne
c
do
t
a
l
)

Testimony re. reliability of eyewitness – admissible

Expe
r
tmus
tha
v
epr
ope
rq
ua
l
i
fic
a
t
i
onsandr
i
ghtfitt
ot
opi
c(
J
i
nr
o
)

But not whether  had mental state/ condition that is
(
b) Te
s
t
i
mon
yba
s
e
dons
uffic
i
e
ntf
a
c
t
sorda
t
a
element of crime charged or defense
(
c
) Te
s
t
i
mon
yi
spr
oduc
tofr
e
l
i
a
bl
epr
i
nc
i
pl
e
s& me
t
hods
;and

But not opinion re. overall case

Pol
y
gr
apht
e
s
tno
tr
e
l
i
a
bl
eme
t
hoda
ndus
ur
psr
ol
eofj
ur
y
c.
Requires proper fit and proper topic

Must be tied to expert’s expertise
(
d
) Expe
r
tha
sr
e
l
i
a
bl
ya
ppl
i
e
dpr
i
nc
i
pl
e
sa
ndme
t
hodst
of
a
c
t
sofc
a
s
e
(4)
Proper Bases. Adequate factual basis for opinion. 702/ 703.
704.
Opi
ni
ononanUl
t
i
ma
t
eI
s
s
ue
a.
Facts/ data through firsthand observation
b.
Facts/ data through trial
(
a
) Opi
ni
oni
sno
tob
j
e
c
t
i
ona
bl
ej
u
s
tbe
c
a
us
ei
tde
a
l
swi
t
ha
nul
t
i
ma
t
ei
s
s
ue
c.
Facts/ data through another – cannot disclose unless reverse 403
(
b) Ex
c
e
pt
i
on:i
nc
r
i
mi
na
lc
a
s
e
,
e
xpe
r
tc
a
nno
ts
t
a
t
ewhe
t
he
r di
d/di
dno
t
ha
v
eme
nt
als
t
a
t
e
/c
ondi
t
i
ont
ha
ti
se
l
e
me
ntofc
r
i
mec
ha
r
g
e
dorde
f
e
ns
e (5) Relevant & Reliable Methods. Product of reliable principles & methods
reliably applied to facts of case. 702/ 703
o Expe
r
tc
a
nno
te
v
e
nl
yi
mpl
i
c
i
t
l
ys
t
a
t
ewhe
t
he
r ha
dme
nt
a
l
a.
Is the methodology reliable?
s
t
a
t
e
/c
ondi
t
i
on
b.
Daube
r
t
/KumhoTi
r
e
: expert technique/ theory
o Cr
e
di
bi
l
i
t
yi
sq
ue
s
t
i
onf
orj
ur
yt
or
e
s
ol
v
e
[judge is gatekeeper]
Is it logical?
1.
Tested?
Gui
l
be
r
t
)

Expe
r
tma
yt
e
s
t
i
f
yr
e
.
r
e
l
i
a
bi
l
i
t
yofe
y
e
wi
t
ne
s
si
de
n
t
i
fic
a
t
i
on(
2.
Published?
703.
Bas
e
sofanExpe
r
t
3.
Rate of error?
4.
Quality control?
 Expe
r
tma
yba
s
eopi
ni
onon:
5.
Acceptance by scientific community?
s
t
handobs
e
r
v
a
t
i
on
(
1) Fa
c
t
s
/da
t
al
e
a
r
ne
db
yfir
Additional Factors: whether field known to be reliable; qualifications
(
2) Fa
c
t
s
/da
t
ag
a
t
he
r
e
df
r
om t
r
i
ali
t
s
e
l
f
& professional stature of the expert
 Te
s
t
i
mon
ye
xpe
r
tha
sa
c
t
ua
l
l
yh
e
a
r
d;or
(6) 403 balancing test.
 Hypot
he
t
i
c
a
lq
ue
s
t
i
ons
umma
r
i
z
i
n
gf
a
c
t
si
n
e
vi
de
nc
e
(
3) Fa
c
t
s
/da
t
aa
c
q
ui
r
e
dt
hr
ou
gha
no
t
he
r(
i
nadmi
s
s
i
bl
ehe
ar
s
a
y
)t
ha
to
t
he
re
xpe
r
t
swoul
dr
e
as
onabl
yr
e
l
yupon
(
a
) Bute
xpe
r
tc
annotj
us
tbec
ondui
tt
ot
r
a
ns
mi
to
t
he
r
wi
s
ei
na
dmi
s
s
i
bl
ee
vi
de
nc
e(
i
.
e
.
,s
e
c
ondha
ndr
e
por
t
s
)
 Re
q
ui
r
e
st
ha
te
xpe
r
tr
e
as
onabl
yr
e
l
i
e
sont
hos
ef
a
c
t
st
or
e
a
c
ha
nopi
ni
on(
I
nr
eMe
l
t
on)
 Onl
ye
xpe
r
t
’
sopi
ni
on
—ba
s
e
di
npa
r
tont
hos
ef
a
c
t
s
—i
sa
dmi
s
s
i
bl
e
—nott
hos
ef
a
c
t
st
he
ms
e
l
v
e
s
(
b) Buti
ff
a
c
t
s
/da
t
awoul
dbei
na
dmi
s
s
i
bl
e
,e
xpe
r
tma
ydi
s
c
l
os
et
he
mt
oj
ur
ys
u
b
j
e
c
tt
or
e
v
e
r
s
e403
 Oppos
i
n
gc
ouns
e
l
,
onc
r
os
s
e
x
a
mi
na
t
i
on
,mayi
nq
ui
r
ea
boutt
hos
ef
a
c
t
st
ounde
r
mi
nee
xpe
r
t
’
sc
r
e
di
bi
l
i
t
y
 But
,t
hel
a
wy
e
rs
pons
or
i
n
gt
hee
xpe
r
tc
annotdi
s
c
l
os
eo
t
he
r
wi
s
ei
na
dmi
s
s
i
bl
ef
a
c
t
s
 Unl
e
s
sc
our
tfindspr
oba
t
i
v
ev
a
l
ues
ubs
t
ant
i
al
l
you
t
we
i
ghsr
i
s
kofunf
a
i
rpr
e
j
udi
c
e(
r
e
v
e
r
s
e403)

Whe
r
ei
nf
o
r
ma
t
i
oni
sba
s
i
sf
ore
xpe
r
topi
ni
on—no
ta
sh
e
a
r
s
a
yi
ndi
s
gui
s
e

Cour
tgr
a
nt
swi
del
a
t
i
t
udewhe
r
eh
e
a
r
s
a
yda
t
ame
e
t
sc
e
r
t
a
i
nl
e
v
e
lofr
e
l
i
a
bi
l
i
t
y(
I
nr
eMe
l
t
on)
 I
fo
t
he
r
wi
s
eh
e
a
r
s
a
yi
nf
o
r
ma
t
i
ondi
s
c
l
os
e
d,
mus
tpr
o
vi
del
i
mi
t
i
n
gi
ns
t
r
uc
t
i
onuponr
e
q
ue
s
t
,
i
nf
or
mi
n
gj
u
r
yt
ha
t
unde
r
l
yi
n
gi
nf
or
ma
t
i
onmus
tno
tbeus
e
ds
ub
s
t
a
nt
i
v
e
l
y

Tr
i
a
lj
ud
g
es
houl
da
l
s
oc
ons
i
de
rt
hepr
oba
bl
ee
ffe
c
t
i
v
e
ne
s
soft
hel
i
mi
t
i
n
gi
ns
t
r
uc
t
i
on

Ex
c
e
pt
i
on:s
t
mt
.
ma
def
orme
di
c
a
ldi
a
gnos
i
sort
r
e
a
t
me
ntc
anbeoffe
r
e
ds
ub
s
t
a
n
t
i
v
e
l
y
(
c
) Enume
r
a
t
e
dDaube
r
tf
a
c
t
or
s
1. Te
c
hni
q
ue
/t
he
or
yc
a
nbeorha
sbe
e
nt
e
s
t
e
d?
2. Te
c
hni
q
ue
/t
he
or
ys
ub
j
e
c
tt
ope
e
rr
e
vi
e
wa
ndpubl
i
c
a
t
i
on?
3. Kno
wnorpo
t
e
nt
i
a
lr
a
t
eofe
r
r
oroft
e
c
hni
q
ue
/t
he
or
y
?
4. St
andar
dst
oc
ont
r
olt
het
e
c
hni
q
ue
’
sope
r
a
t
i
on?
5. Ge
ne
r
a
l
l
yac
c
e
pt
e
di
nt
her
e
l
e
v
a
nts
c
i
e
n
t
i
ficc
ommuni
t
y
?(
i
nc
or
por
a
t
e
sFr
y
e
)
(
d) Unde
rKumhoTi
r
eCo,Daube
r
ta
ppl
i
e
st
oa
l
lt
ype
sofe
xpe
r
tt
e
s
t
i
mon
y(
i
.
e
.
,t
e
c
hni
c
a
lors
pe
c
i
a
l
i
z
e
dkno
wl
e
d
g
e
)

Lookf
orl
o
gi
c
a
lde
fic
i
e
nc
i
e
si
nt
heme
t
hod(
i
.
e
.
,whe
ne
xpe
r
ti
shi
r
e
dgun)
(
e
) Evi
de
nc
emus
ts
pe
a
kc
l
e
a
r
l
ya
nddi
r
e
c
t
l
yt
oa
ni
s
s
uei
ndi
s
put
ei
nt
hec
a
s
e
,a
ndt
ha
ti
twi
l
lno
tmi
s
l
e
a
dt
hej
u
r
y
11
Downloaded by kurtis collins (collik9@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|12501682
705.
Di
s
c
l
os
i
ngFac
t
s
/Da
t
aUnde
r
l
yi
ngExpe
r
t
’
sOpi
ni
on

Unl
e
s
sc
our
tor
de
r
so
t
he
r
wi
s
e
,e
xpe
r
tma
ys
t
a
t
eopi
ni
on& r
e
as
onswi
t
houtfir
s
tt
e
s
t
i
f
yi
n
gt
ounde
r
l
yi
n
gf
a
c
t
s
/da
t
a

Bute
xpe
r
tma
yber
e
q
ui
r
e
dt
odi
s
c
l
os
ef
a
c
t
s
/da
t
aonc
r
os
s
e
x
a
mi
na
t
i
on

Whe
r
et
hos
ef
a
c
t
sa
r
edi
s
c
l
os
e
d,on
l
ye
xpe
r
topi
ni
o
n—no
tunde
r
l
yi
n
gda
t
a
—i
sa
dmi
s
s
i
bl
e
o J
ud
g
et
he
r
e
f
or
egi
v
e
sj
ur
yl
i
mi
t
i
n
gi
ns
t
r
u
c
t
i
ont
ono
tus
et
heunde
r
l
yi
n
gi
nf
o
r
ma
t
i
onf
ors
ub
s
t
a
nt
i
v
epur
pos
e
s
12
Downloaded by kurtis collins (collik9@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|12501682
901.AUTHENTI
CATI
ON
(
a
) I
nGe
ne
r
al
.Re
q
ui
r
e
me
ntofa
ut
he
nt
i
c
a
t
i
on/i
d
e
nt
i
fic
a
t
i
ona
sc
ondi
t
i
onpr
e
c
e
de
ntt
oa
dmi
s
s
i
bi
l
i
t
y–s
a
t
i
s
fie
db
ye
vi
de
nc
es
u
ffic
i
e
ntt
os
uppor
tafindi
n
gt
h
a
t
t
hema
t
t
e
ri
nq
ue
s
t
i
oni
swha
tpr
opon
e
ntc
l
a
i
msi
tt
obe
.104(
b
)[
c
ondi
t
i
ona
lr
e
l
e
v
a
nc
e
]
o
Toaut
he
nt
i
c
at
ee
vi
de
nc
e
,wene
e
dwi
t
ne
s
s[
w/pe
r
s
ona
lkno
wl
e
d
g
e
]ont
hes
t
and[
s
i
mpl
ewi
t
ne
s
st
e
s
t
i
mon
yt
ha
tt
hi
n
gi
swh
a
ti
tpur
por
t
st
obe
]

La
yv
oi
c
ei
de
nt
i
fic
a
t
i
on[
l
ookf
ordi
s
t
i
nc
t
i
v
ec
ha
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
]
—c
i
r
c
ums
t
a
nt
i
a
le
vi
de
nc
e(
Smal
l
)

De
mons
t
r
a
t
i
v
ee
vi
de
nc
e[
Pho
t
os
/CGIf
oo
t
a
g
e
]

Wedon
’
tne
e
dpho
t
o
gr
a
phe
rbutdon
e
e
dwi
t
ne
s
ss
t
a
t
i
n
gi
ma
g
e
sr
e
fle
c
tt
h
e
i
rpe
r
s
ona
lkno
wl
e
d
g
e(
Si
mms
)
o
I
fnowi
t
ne
s
st
e
s
t
i
mo
ny[
t
ha
tpho
t
o
,vi
de
o
,r
e
c
or
di
n
g
,e
t
c
.r
e
fle
c
t
sp
e
r
s
on
a
lkno
wl
e
d
g
e
]
s
i
l
e
ntwi
t
ne
s
st
he
or
y[
i
.
e
.
,s
ur
v
e
i
l
l
a
nc
ef
oo
t
a
g
e
]
;c
ons
i
d
e
r
:
i
.
i
i
.
i
i
i
.
i
v
.
v
.
v
i
.
I
st
he
r
et
i
mea
n
dd
a
t
es
t
a
mpi
n
g
?
An
ye
v
i
de
nc
eoft
a
mpe
r
i
n
g
?
Ca
ns
ome
onet
a
l
ka
b
outt
hea
bi
l
i
t
yo
ft
hee
q
ui
pme
nt
?
I
st
hec
a
me
r
ai
ns
t
a
l
l
e
dpr
o
pe
r
l
y
?
Ha
si
tbe
e
nma
i
nt
a
i
ne
ds
e
c
ur
e
l
y
?
Ne
e
dt
ofin
dt
h
er
i
g
htwi
t
ne
s
s
e
st
ot
a
l
ka
b
outho
w“
we
”d
e
a
lwi
t
ht
hef
oo
t
a
g
e
.
(1)
(2)
Authenticate the document.- 104(b) that a reasonable
juror may find by the preponderance of the evidence
a.
W testimony– doc. is what it purports to be; or
b.
Self-authenticating doc.
Potential hearsay issue. – 104(a) that judge finds by
preponderance of the evidence
403: is evidence inauthentic/ unfairly prejudicial?
(3)
(
b) Exampl
e
s
.
(
1) Te
s
t
i
monybywi
t
ne
s
skno
wl
e
dg
e
.Tha
tma
t
t
e
ri
swh
a
ti
ti
sc
l
a
i
me
dt
obe
(
2) None
xpe
r
topi
ni
ononhandwr
i
t
i
ng.Ast
ot
h
eg
e
nui
ne
ne
s
sofha
nd
wr
i
t
i
n
g
,b
a
s
e
donf
a
mi
l
i
a
r
i
t
ynotac
qui
r
e
df
orpur
pos
e
soft
hel
i
t
i
g
at
i
on.
(
3) Compar
i
s
onbyt
i
e
roff
ac
to
re
xpe
r
twi
t
ne
s
s
.Wi
t
ha
ut
he
n
t
i
c
a
t
e
ds
pe
c
i
me
ns
.
s
t
i
nc
t
i
v
ec
har
ac
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
.Appe
a
r
a
nc
e
s
,c
ont
e
nt
s
,s
ub
s
t
a
nc
e
,i
nt
e
r
na
lpa
t
t
e
r
ns
,e
t
c
.
,t
a
k
e
ni
nc
on
j
unc
t
i
onwi
t
hc
i
r
c
ums
t
a
nc
e
s
(
4) Di
(
5) Voi
c
eI
de
nt
i
fic
a
t
i
on.Opi
ni
onb
a
s
e
donhe
a
r
i
n
gv
oi
c
ea
ta
n
yt
i
me[
fir
s
t
h
a
nd/r
e
c
or
di
n
g]und
e
rc
i
r
c
ums
t
a
nc
e
sc
onne
c
t
i
n
gi
twi
t
ht
hea
l
l
e
g
e
ds
pe
a
k
e
r
(
6) Te
l
e
phonec
onv
e
r
s
a
t
i
on.b
ye
vi
de
nc
et
h
a
tac
a
l
lwa
sma
det
ot
henumbe
ra
s
s
i
gne
da
tt
h
et
i
meb
yt
e
l
e
phonec
ompa
n
yt
opa
r
t
i
c
ul
a
rp
e
r
s
on/bus
i
ne
s
s
,i
f
i
r
c
ums
t
a
nc
e
s
,i
nc
l
udi
n
gs
e
l
f
i
de
n
t
i
fic
a
t
i
on,s
ho
wp
e
r
s
ona
n
s
we
r
i
n
gwa
st
h
eonewhoc
a
l
l
e
d,o
r
(
A) f
orp
e
r
s
on–c
(
B) f
orbus
i
ne
s
s–t
h
ec
a
l
lwa
sma
d
et
oapl
a
c
eofbus
i
ne
s
sa
ndt
h
ec
on
v
e
r
s
a
t
i
onr
e
l
a
t
e
dt
obus
i
ne
s
sr
e
a
s
on
a
bl
yt
r
a
ns
a
c
t
e
do
v
e
rt
e
l
e
phone
(
7) Publ
i
cr
e
c
or
ds
/r
e
por
t
s
.(
1)a
ut
hor
i
z
e
db
yl
a
wt
ober
e
c
o
r
de
d/fil
e
dw/publ
i
coffic
e
;(
2)i
sr
e
c
or
d
e
d/fil
e
di
npubl
i
co
ffic
e
/publ
i
cr
e
c
or
d
(
8) Anc
i
e
ntdoc
/da
t
ac
ompi
l
a
t
i
on.
ha
tc
r
e
a
t
e
snos
us
pi
c
i
onr
e
.a
ut
h
e
nt
i
c
i
t
y
;
(
A) I
nc
ondi
t
i
ont
(
B) I
napl
a
c
ewh
e
r
ei
t
,i
fa
ut
h
e
nt
i
c
,i
twoul
dl
i
k
e
l
ybe
;and
(
C) (
C)ha
sb
e
e
ni
ne
xi
s
t
e
nc
e20y
e
a
r
sormor
e[
he
a
r
s
a
ye
x
c
e
p
t
i
on]a
tt
h
et
i
mei
twa
soffe
r
e
d
(
9) Pr
oc
e
s
s
/s
y
s
t
e
m.Evi
de
nc
ede
s
c
r
i
bi
n
gapr
oc
e
s
sors
y
s
t
e
mus
e
dt
opr
o
duc
ear
e
s
ul
ta
nds
ho
wi
n
gt
ha
tt
h
epr
oc
e
s
sors
y
s
t
e
m pr
oduc
e
sa
na
c
c
ur
a
t
er
e
s
ul
t
.
(
10)Me
t
hodspr
o
vi
de
dbys
t
a
t
ut
e
/r
ul
e
.An
yme
t
hodofa
ut
he
nt
i
c
a
t
i
ono
ri
de
nt
i
fic
a
t
i
onpr
o
vi
de
db
yAc
tofCon
gr
e
s
so
rSupr
e
meCour
t




Es
t
a
bl
i
s
hc
ha
i
nofc
us
t
od
y;butno
tn
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
yt
oe
s
t
a
bl
i
s
he
v
e
r
yl
i
nki
nc
ha
i
nofc
us
t
od
y[
t
e
s
t
i
mon
yb
ya
c
hp
e
r
s
ont
os
ho
wt
h
eo
r
i
gi
na
lc
ondi
t
i
oni
spr
e
s
e
r
v
e
d;
[
not
a
mpe
r
i
n
g/a
l
t
e
r
a
t
i
on]–g
apsg
ot
oho
wmuc
hwe
i
ghtj
ur
ygi
v
e
sdoc
.
,no
twhe
t
h
e
ri
ti
sa
dmi
t
t
e
d
Vi
gne
au,c
l
a
i
msdoc
.i
na
ut
he
n
t
i
c[
t
ha
ts
ome
on
eus
e
dhi
sna
me
]
—i
nde
p
e
nde
nte
vi
de
nc
e
,s
uffic
i
e
ntt
os
uppor
tfindi
n
gunde
r104(
b)
,t
ha
ti
t
’
sa
ut
he
nt
i
c
o
Sol
ut
i
ons
:(
2
)ha
nd
wr
i
t
i
n
ga
na
l
y
s
i
sbe
f
or
el
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
on;(
3
)a
no
t
he
rha
nd
wr
i
t
i
n
gs
a
mpl
e
,butr
e
q
ui
r
e
sa
ut
he
nt
i
c
a
t
i
n
gt
ha
to
t
he
rs
a
mpl
e
;
(
4)n
a
me
,a
ddr
e
s
s
,&phon
enumbe
ra
sdi
s
t
i
nc
t
i
v
ec
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
;(
8)pol
i
c
es
t
a
t
i
n
gt
he
s
ea
r
ef
or
ms
,h
e
r
e
’
st
hec
h
a
i
no
fc
us
t
od
y
,e
t
c
.
902.SELFAUTHENTI
CATI
NG EVI
DENCE
104(
a
)[
pr
e
l
i
mi
na
r
yr
e
q
ui
r
e
me
nt
]
;noe
xt
r
i
ns
i
ce
vi
de
nc
er
e
qui
r
e
dt
oadmi
t
:
Do not need to lay foundation with 902.
s
t
i
cpubl
i
cdoc–s
i
gne
d& s
e
al
e
d:(
a
)USs
e
a
l
;(
b)e
x
e
c
ut
i
on/a
t
t
e
s
t
a
t
i
ons
i
gna
t
ur
e
(
1) Dome
(
2) Dome
s
t
i
cpubl
i
cdoc–s
i
gne
d& c
e
r
t
i
fie
d:2s
i
gna
t
ur
e
s–(
a
)g
e
nui
neo
ffic
e
rs
i
gna
t
ur
e[
902(
1
)
(
a
)
]
;(
b)a
no
t
he
rpubl
i
co
ffic
e
rg
e
nui
nes
i
gn
a
t
ur
e
(
3) For
e
i
gnpubl
i
cdoc
:r
e
q
ui
r
e
sfina
lc
e
r
t
i
fic
a
t
i
on[
g
e
nui
nes
i
gna
t
ur
e&s
i
gn
e
r
’
spos
i
t
i
on]oror
de
rt
ob
et
r
e
a
t
e
da
ut
h
e
nt
i
cw/
oc
e
r
t
i
fic
a
t
i
on
(
4) Ce
r
t
i
fie
dc
opi
e
so
fpubl
i
cr
e
c
or
ds
:(
a
)c
us
t
odi
a
n/o
t
he
ra
ut
hor
i
z
e
dt
oc
e
r
t
i
f
y
;(
b
)c
e
r
t
i
fic
a
t
ec
ompl
i
e
sw/902
(
1)
,(
2
)
,(
3)
,f
e
d
.s
t
a
t
ut
e
,ors
up
r
e
mec
our
t
(
5) Offic
i
alpubl
i
c
a
t
i
on:i
s
s
ue
db
ypubl
i
ca
ut
hor
i
t
y
(
6) Ne
ws
pape
r
s& pe
r
i
odi
c
al
s
(
7) Tr
adei
ns
c
r
i
pt
i
ons& t
hel
i
ke
:a
ffix
e
di
nc
ou
r
s
eo
fbus
i
ne
s
s
,i
ndi
c
a
t
i
n
gor
i
gi
n,o
wne
r
s
hi
p,orc
ont
r
ol
(
8) Ac
kno
wl
e
dg
e
ddoc
:i
nc
l
ude
sno
t
a
r
i
z
e
d[
b
ypubl
i
co
ffic
i
a
l
]c
e
r
t
i
fic
a
t
eo
fa
c
kno
wl
e
d
g
e
me
nt
(
9) Comme
r
c
i
alpape
r& r
e
l
a
t
e
ddoc
:s
i
gn
e
d& a
spr
o
vi
de
db
yg
e
ne
r
a
lc
omme
r
c
i
a
ll
a
w
(
10)Pr
e
s
umpt
i
onsunde
rf
e
de
r
als
t
a
t
ut
e
/c
ongr
e
s
s
:a
n
yt
hi
n
ghe
l
dt
ob
epr
e
s
ump
t
i
v
e
l
yg
e
nui
neb
yf
e
d
.s
t
a
t
ut
e
(
11)Ce
r
t
i
fie
dbus
i
ne
s
sr
e
c
or
ds[
dome
s
t
i
c
]
:(
a
)c
e
r
t
i
fic
a
t
i
onb
yc
us
t
odi
a
n;(
b
)r
e
a
s
ona
bl
eno
t
i
c
e
(
12)Ce
r
t
i
fie
dbus
i
ne
s
sr
e
c
or
ds[
f
or
e
i
gn]
:(
a
)c
e
r
t
i
fic
a
t
i
ont
ha
t
,i
ff
a
l
s
e
,ma
k
e
ss
i
gn
e
rs
ub
j
e
c
tt
oc
r
i
mi
na
lpe
n
a
l
t
yi
nt
ha
tc
ount
r
y
;(
b)r
e
a
s
ona
bl
eno
t
i
c
e
(
13)Ce
r
t
i
fie
dr
e
c
or
dsg
e
ne
r
a
t
e
dbye
l
e
c
t
r
oni
cpr
oc
e
s
s
/s
y
s
t
e
m:(
a
)pr
oduc
i
n
gc
e
r
t
i
fic
a
t
i
onc
ompl
yi
n
gw/902(
11
)& (
12)
;a
nd(
b
)r
e
a
s
ona
bl
eno
t
i
c
e
(
14)Ce
r
t
i
fie
dda
t
ac
opi
e
df
r
o
me
l
e
c
t
r
oni
cde
vi
c
e
,s
t
or
ag
e
,me
di
um,fil
e
:pr
oduc
i
n
gc
e
r
t
i
fic
a
t
i
onc
ompl
yi
n
gw/902(
11)&(
12)
;a
nd(
b)r
e
a
s
ona
bl
eno
t
i
c
e
Es
t
a
bl
i
s
hc
ha
i
nofc
us
t
od
y:no
tn
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
yt
oe
s
t
a
bl
i
s
he
v
e
r
yl
i
nki
nt
hec
h
a
i
no
fc
us
t
od
y
o
Te
s
t
i
mon
yb
ye
a
c
hp
e
r
s
onw/c
us
t
od
yo
fi
t
e
mt
os
ho
wor
i
gi
na
lc
ondi
t
i
on[
not
a
mp
e
r
i
n
g/
a
l
t
e
r
a
t
i
on
]–r
e
g
ul
a
r
i
t
yofbus
i
ne
s
st
opr
e
s
e
r
v
ec
ha
i
nofc
us
t
o
d
y
BESTEVI
DENCERULE
1001.De
fini
t
i
onst
ha
tAppl
y

Br
oa
dde
fini
t
i
on:l
e
t
t
e
r
s
,wor
ds
,numbe
r
s
,ore
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
nt
i
nc
l
udi
n
gdr
a
wi
n
g
s(
i
.
e
.
,Luc
as
fil
m,St
a
rWa
r
sdr
a
wi
n
g
s
)

Enc
ompa
s
s
e
sa
l
mos
ta
n
yt
hi
n
gr
e
c
o
r
de
d:ha
nd
wr
i
t
i
n
g/t
yp
e
wr
i
t
i
n
g/pr
i
nt
i
n
g
;c
omput
e
rfil
e
s
/di
s
ks
/CDs
;t
a
p
er
e
c
or
di
n
g/pho
t
os
/vi
de
o
t
a
pe
s
;Xr
a
y
s
1002.Re
qui
r
e
me
ntoft
heOr
i
gi
nal
:Or
i
gi
na
lwr
i
t
i
n
g
,r
e
c
o
r
di
n
g
,o
rpho
t
o
gr
a
phi
sr
e
q
ui
r
e
di
no
r
de
rt
opr
o
v
ei
t
sc
ont
e
nt
sunl
e
s
sFREors
t
a
t
ut
epr
o
vi
de
so
t
h
e
r
wi
s
e
1003.Admi
s
s
i
bi
l
i
t
yo
fDupl
i
c
a
t
e
s
:

Dupl
i
c
a
t
e
sa
dmi
s
s
i
bl
e–t
os
a
mee
xt
e
nta
sor
i
gi
n
a
l–unl
e
s
si
ndi
c
i
aofunr
e
l
i
abi
l
i
t
y
(
1) Ge
nui
n
eq
ue
s
t
i
ona
boutaut
he
nt
i
c
i
t
yofor
i
gi
nal
;or
(
2) Unf
ai
rt
oa
dmi
tdupl
i
c
a
t
e[
i
.
e
.
,I
n
a
c
c
ur
a
t
ec
op
y
?Re
da
c
t
e
dunf
a
i
r
l
y
?Spl
i
c
e
d?
]

Dupl
i
c
a
t
e
si
nc
l
udeme
c
h
a
ni
c
a
lr
e
pr
oduc
t
i
on[
x
e
r
o
x
,CDc
op
y
,e
t
c
.
]und
e
r1001
o
Onl
yr
e
l
e
v
a
ntt
ha
ti
ti
sac
op
yi
fl
e
g
a
lc
l
a
i
mr
e
q
ui
r
e
spr
o
vi
ngt
hec
ont
e
nt
sofdoc
.[
i
.
e
.c
ont
r
a
c
t
/
de
e
d]andi
fhumani
nt
e
r
f
e
r
e
nc
e[
i
.
e
,t
r
a
ns
c
r
i
pt
i
on]

I
.
e
.
,c
ha
tl
o
g
swe
r
et
r
a
ns
c
r
i
be
d,a
ndnogua
r
a
nt
e
et
ha
tt
r
a
ns
c
r
i
p
t
i
ona
de
q
u
a
t
e
l
yr
e
fle
c
t
e
dt
hea
c
t
ua
lc
ont
e
nt(
Jac
ks
on)

Bypr
e
pond
e
r
a
nc
eoft
h
ee
vi
de
nc
e
,a
r
et
he
s
er
e
c
or
dswha
tt
h
e
ypur
por
tt
obe
?
o
Nogua
r
a
nt
e
ehe
r
e
—whe
r
ec
ont
e
nti
ss
ub
j
e
c
toft
h
ec
l
a
i
m— wene
e
dor
i
gi
na
lt
r
a
ns
c
r
i
pt
i
onofc
ha
t
r
oomr
e
c
o
r
ds
1004.Admi
s
s
i
bi
l
i
t
yo
fOt
he
rEvi
de
nc
eofCont
e
nt
:

Or
i
gi
na
lno
tr
e
q
ui
r
e
da
ndo
t
h
e
re
vi
de
nc
eo
fc
ont
e
ntofwr
i
t
i
n
g
,r
e
c
or
di
n
g
,orpho
t
o
gr
a
phi
sa
dmi
s
s
i
bl
ei
f
:
13
Downloaded by kurtis collins (collik9@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|12501682
(
a) Or
i
gi
na
l
swe
r
el
os
t
/de
s
t
r
o
y
e
d,a
ndno
tb
ypr
opon
e
nta
c
t
i
n
gba
df
a
i
t
h
NOTHE(
A
bR
)SA
OY
r
i
g
i
n
d
a
e
l
c
l
c
a
a
r
n
a
n
n
o
t
t
mu
bes
o
t
b
t
t
e
a
s
i
t
n
i
f
e
y
db
ya
v
a
i
l
a
bl
ej
udi
c
E
i
a
X
lp
C
r
E
oc
P
e
T
s
s
I
ON-de
c
l
ar
antuna
v
ai
l
abl
e
EXCEPTI
ON-de
c
l
ar
anta
v
ai
l
abi
l
i
t
yi
mma
t
e
r
i
al
ont
r
olo
for
i
gi
na
l
;g
i
v
e
nno
t
i
c
e
;butf
ai
l
e
dt
opr
oduc
e
;or
(
c
) Pa
r
t
y[
a
g
a
i
ns
twhomor
i
gi
na
lwoul
dbeoffe
r
e
d]h
a
dc
(
d) Wr
i
t
i
n
g
,r
e
c
or
di
n
g
,pho
t
o
gr
a
phno
tc
l
os
e
l
yr
e
l
a
t
e
dt
oc
ont
r
ol
l
i
ngi
s
s
ue
Inconsistent Stmt. (1) declarant testifies;
Unavailable. (1) privilege; (2) refuses to testify;
Present-Sense Impression. (1) personal knowledge;
(2) now cross-examinable (3) prior stmt. under
(3) no memory; (4) death/illness; (5) cannot procure
(2) spontaneity [at or immediately after]; (3) describing or
oath; (4) stmt. in prior proceeding (grand jury) for
explaining event/ occurrence.
Requires showing [adequate foundation] for unavailability
substantive use 801(d)(1)(A)
under 104(a).
Excited Utterance. (1) personal knowledge;
Stmt. not under oath for impeachment. 613
(2) relating to startled event/condition [good or bad];
Former Testimony. (1) prior stmt. in prior proceeding w/
(3) under stress/excitement [longer timespan than 803(1),
sworn testimony & opportunity for cross-exam. with similar
i.e., awakening from coma counts].
Prior Consistent Stmt. (1) declarant testifies;
motive [no grand jury] 804(b)(1)
(2) now cross-examinable; (3) to rebut fabrication/
No questioning [by police/ doctor] interferes with pure
If trial 1 damages> trail 2 damages  similar motive
improper motive charge [prior to influence of
expression of startled utterance
If trial 1 damages= imprisonment no similar motive
motive] or rehabilitate credibility after attacked
801(d)(1)(B)
Dying Declaration. (1) reasonable belief of imminent death;
Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, Physical Condition.
(2) re. cause/ circumstances; (3) homicide/ civil [not crim]
(1) personal knowledge; (2) how he feels.
Prior Identification. (1) declarant testifies;
Personal knowledge; cannot be speculative (Shepard)
No stmt. re past belief to prove fact was believed. Shepard
(2) now cross-examinable. No oath req.
—no stmt. re. past feeling/ condition [i.e., I was depressed
After W testifies [“I don’t know”], police can testify Stmt. Against Interest. (1) contrary to proprietary
that day]
for TOMA re. prior identification.
[property]/ pecuniary [financial] interests; invalidates claims;
No stmt. regarding past conversation (Hillmon)
Police sketch admissible. 801(d)(1)(C)
exposes to criminal liability; (2) for crim cases, supported by
Hillmon doctrine: declarant’s plan [intent to do [x] is
corroborating circumstances.
probative of whether [x] occurred] but not where involves
Opposing Party Stmt. (1) any stmt. by party or
Factors for corroborating circumstances: (1) motive to lie;
cooperation of third party [because no personal knowledge]
legal rep [for child, mentally disabled, or decedent]
(2) repetition; (3) relationship w/ listener; (4) relationship w/
Must carve out plan of another.
offered by opposing party [not witness/ victim]
opponent of evidence; (5) nature/ strength of other evidence
Impeachment: no req. for opp. for W to explain/
Med. Diagnosis/ Treatment. (1) personal knowledge
Carve exculpatory & neutral statements (Williamson)
deny or for adverse party to examine. 613(b)
[think not know cause, if symptoms familiar, 804(4) applies];
(2) stmt. made by individual/ third party[can be non-M.D.]
(3) for medical diagnosis/ treatment
Adoptive Admission. Express/ silence;
Forfeiture of Misconduct. (1) party has engaged or
(1) stmt. heard/ understood; (2) liberty to respond;
acquiesced in wrongdoing; (2) intended to make individual
Ironshell: (1) declarant’s motive is consistent w/ purpose of
(3) circumstances call for response; (4) no response
unavailable as witness.
treatment/diagnosis [problematic for kids]
(2) stmt. reasonably relied upon by physician
Pre-Miranda silence used substantively & for
Carve to exclude who did it
impeachment (Fletcher)
Authorized Party Stmt. Spokesperson
Employee/ Agent Stmt. (1) agent/ employee;
[not contractor] (2) scope of relationship;
(3) while relationship existed.
Coconspirator. (1) declarant & another conspired;
(2) during course of conspiracy;
(3) while conspiracy existed [prior to police]
Personal knowledge not required.
If declarant refuses to testify [threatened w/
contempt], preliminary req for 801(d) exclusions
not satisfied.
Defendant guaranteed cross-examination, but not
effective cross=examination.
Under 104(a) and Boujaily, stmt. itself is not
sufficient; requires consideration of facts and
circumstances for judge to find, by preponderance
of evidence, that preliminary question of
employment/ agency, authority, or conspiracy.
Refreshing Recollections. 612. Anything to refresh memory,
not admitted as evidence/ exhibit. Attorney takes back object/
thing, and W testifies from refreshed memory.
Other side can evaluate doc/ thing. If objection [W testifying
from doc/ thing not memory], attorney must use 803(5).
Recorded Recollections. (1) personal knowledge;
(2) doc/ writing admitted instead of testimony.
Generally first required to try refreshing recollection.
Strictly construed rule requiring that record:
(1) lacks present recollection;
(2) stmt. reflects first-hand knowledge W once had;
(3) adopted while still fresh in witness’s memory
Where witness will not swear by all three elements, doc/
writing cannot be admitted (Johnson)
Business Records. 803(6) Requires that record:
(A) made at/ near time by someone with knowledge;
(B) kept in course of regularly conducted business;
(C) making record was regular practice of activity;
(D) all shown by custodian testimony/certification
(E) opponents don’t show info/ prep is untrustworthy
Not where record made in anticipation of litigation(Palmer)
Untrustworthiness Factors: investigation timeliness; special
skill/ experience of official; when hearing held & who was
present; potential motivational problems
Absence of Business Record. To show non-occurrence
Public Records. (1) record that (a) office activities; (b)
matter observed under legal duty to report [but not by law
enforcement against criminal ]; or (c) factual findings,
legally-authorized investigation [not against criminal ] and
(2) opponent does not show source/ other circumstances to
indicate untrustworthiness
Untrustworthiness Factors: investigation timeliness; official’s
special skill/experience; hearing held; motivational problems
14
Beech Aircraft: reports can include fact/ opinions/ conclusion
Oats: req. testimony by chemist for record against criminal 
Hayes: routine; non-adversarial [IRS tax record]
Weiland: business records cannot supersede public records
Downloaded by kurtis collins (collik9@gmail.com) Absence of Public Record. (1) testimony/ certification
[902] that diligent search failed to disclose public record; and
lOMoARcPSD|12501682
15
Downloaded by kurtis collins (collik9@gmail.com)