TRIAL EVIDENCE SKILLS, PART V
Hearsay Exceptions This article is the fifth in a multi-part series on trial evidence. Hearsay exceptions are based on a combination of reliability and need. The justification for most exceptions is that cross-examination is unnecessary to test one or more of the out-of-court declarant’s four testimonial capacities–perception, memory, communication, sincerity. For example, statements of presently […]
Trial Evidence Skills, Part IV
Hearsay Hearsay is the second core trial evidence issue (after Relevance) and probably the most misunderstood. The difficult issue with hearsay is not whether one of the many exceptions apply–they’re straightforward and easy to get a handle on. The hard part of hearsay is identifying whether or not a statement is hearsay to begin with.The […]
TRIAL EVIDENCE SKILLS, PART III
Form of Question: Direct Examination Form of the question objections are mostly based on California Evidence Code section 765 and Federal Rule of Evidence 611(a). These provisions give the trial judge overall control over the trial so as to maximize speedy ascertainment of the truth and minimize witness harassment. Specific form objections that may arise […]
Trial Evidence: Part Two
If you want to be an effective trial advocate, you must understand the issue of relevance. Such understanding will boost your chances of persuading a judge to admit or deny questionable evidence and will help you plead and structure your entire case. To be relevant at trial, evidence must be probative of: (1) a witness’s credibility, […]
Trial Evidence Series: Part One
This article is the first in a multi-part series on Trial Evidence by Tim Hallhan. I’ll focus on the rules of evidence as an advocacy process–how to use them to win your case. A thorough understanding of the key rules that apply over and over in trial and the purpose behind those rules is crucial […]