Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Evidence Rules I Don’t Know

 Evidence of other crimes, while generally not admissible, can be admitted to prove
things other than the defendant's criminal disposition. The acronym "MIMIC"
identifies relevant purposes for admitting such evidence: Motive, Intent, Mistake,
Identity, or Common scheme or plan. In this question, because the gun was very
unusual, the testimony of the witness is admissible to establish the identity of the
robber by establishing that the identifying characteristic was present in the earlier
crime.
 Supreme Court held in United States v. Owens that a declarant-witness is subject to
cross-examination within the meaning of the hearsay exception for prior
identifications even if the witness lacks memory of the prior identification.
 This is a correct statement of the scope of cross-examination, as set forth by Rule
611(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, in the absence of any permission by the
court to inquire into other matters. If a witness is declared hostile, the examining
party may be allowed to examine the witness by leading questions. But a declaration
that a witness is hostile does not mean that the cross-examination can go beyond the
scope of direct examination.
 Truthfulness is a relevant trait only to rehabilitate a witness whose character for
truthfulness has been attacked, but there is no indication that such an attack has taken
place here.
 Medical records are admissible as a record of regularly conducted activity.
 Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or
supporting the witness's character for truthfulness, may not be proven by extrinsic
evidence. Testimony from a former employer that the witness submitted a false
expense report is extrinsic evidence that is being sought to be admitted to attack the
witness's character for truthfulness and is thus inadmissible.
 Preliminary questions concerning the admissibility of evidence shall be determined
by the court. In making its determination, the court is not bound by the rules of
evidence except those with respect to privileges. The judge may consider the
affidavit, even though it is hearsay, in making its determination of the admissibility of
the pedestrian's statements.
 The passenger's statement that "we should have had our lights on" to the bystander is
an out-of-court statement being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. As such, it
is hearsay, and does not fall into any exception to the hearsay rule and it is thus
inadmissible.
 Passenger is not a party to the suit, and his statement cannot be attributed to the
plaintiff to be considered an admission of a party opponent. The passenger was not
the plaintiff's agent, he was not the plaintiff's representative, he was not a co-
conspirator, and the plaintiff did not adopt the passenger's statement as his own, so
the statement is not admissible as an admission by a party opponent.
 Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) admits a hearsay statement that would otherwise be
barred under Rule 802 where the statement "relat[es] to a startling event or condition
made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or
condition." In this case, the assault was a startling event, and the victim made the
statement immediately after the beating, trying to identify the perpetrator. Thus, all
the admissibility requirements of Rule 803(2), the excited utterance exception, are
met.
 When ruling on the railroad's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, the court
should review the evidence in favor of the non-moving party.
 The U.S. Supreme Court has held it to be a violation of due process for a judge to give a
mandatory jury instruction in a criminal case on an element of the charged crime. The
instruction is unconstitutional because the phrase "shall be presumed" could be
interpreted by the jury as shifting the burden of proof to the defendant or as requiring the
jury to find an element of the charged crime, neither of which is permissible.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen