Download - 149623726 a Summary of the Rules of Evidence
-
8/13/2019 149623726 a Summary of the Rules of Evidence
1/27
A SUMMARY OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE:
THE ESSENTIAL TOOLS FOR SURVIVAL IN THE COURTROOM
By Vincent DiCarloTABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction
II. The Four Types of Evidence
III. General Rules of Admissibility
IV. Real Evidence
V. Demonstrative Evidence
VI. Documentary Evidence
VII. Testimonial Evidence
VIII. Form of Examination
I. The !ay "pinion Rule
. Accreditin# and Discreditin# a $itness
I. %haracter Evidence
II. The Rule A#ainst &earsay
III. 'rivile#es
IV. 'resumptions
V. (udicial )otice and "ther *ubstitutes for Evidence
VI. +a,in# and "pposin# "b-ections
VII. +iscellaneous "ther Rules
VIII. %onclusion
I. INTRODUCTION.
http://www.dicarlolaw.com/CoHist.htm#Resume%20of%20Vincent%20DiCarlohttp://www.dicarlolaw.com/CoHist.htm#Resume%20of%20Vincent%20DiCarlo -
8/13/2019 149623726 a Summary of the Rules of Evidence
2/27
$e can only cover the %alifornia and federal la of evidence in the short time that e
have by a ruthless process of selection and compression. $hat e ill cover can best be
thou#ht of as that essential ,ernel of the la of evidence that the trial layer must carryin his head.
"ur tas, ould be impossible but for to important facts. First/ all of you have studied
the la of evidence before/ either in a course on evidence or in preparation for the bar
exam. Accordin#ly/ most of the rules presented ill already be familiar to you. $hat eill do here is to try to revie/ or#ani0e/ and reinforce that la so that you can apply it
ith confidence hen you need it.
*econd/ most of the rules of evidence need not be covered here because they are either so
obvious that you already ,no all you need to ,no about them or they apply only inlimited circumstances. For example/ e ould surely be astin# our time if e indul#ed
in an extended discussion of the rule that evidence should be construed to achieve the
ends of -ustice/ and others li,e it. This and many other rules only state the obvious andill not be covered here. Rules that apply only in limited circumstances include ones li,e
those relatin# to the scope of cross examination of a plaintiff in a case of sexual assault/ a
-uror1s incompetence to impeach his on verdict/ and the proof of valuation of property.Evid. %ode 22 345/ 5567/ 457 et se8.9 Fed. Rules Evid. :5;/
-
8/13/2019 149623726 a Summary of the Rules of Evidence
3/27
The basic prere8uisites of admissibility are relevance/ materiality/ and competence. In
#eneral/ if evidence is shon to be relevant/ material/ and competent/ and is not barred by
an exclusionary rule/ it is admissible. Evid. %ode 2 ?659 Fed. Rules Evid. :7;.
Evidence is relevanthen it has any tendency in reason to ma,e the fact that it is offeredto prove or disprove either more or less probable. Evid. %ode 2 ;579 Fed. Rules Evid.
:75. To be relevant/ a particular item of evidence need not ma,e the fact for hich it is
offered certain/ or even more probable than not. All that is re8uired is that it have sometendency to increase the li,elihood of the fact for hich it is offered. Weighingthe
evidence is for the finder of fact/ and althou#h a particular piece of evidence/ standin# by
itself/ may be ea,/ it ill be admitted unless it is otherise incompetent or it runs afoul
of an exclusionary rule. For example/ if the fact to be proved is that the defendant bit offthe plaintiff1s nose in a fi#ht/ testimony by an eyeitness to the act ould clearly be
relevant/ but so ould testimony by a itness ho heard the plaintiff and the defendant
exchan#e an#ry ords on the day before the fi#ht/ or even testimony by a itness hosold the defendant a disinfectant mouthash shortly afterards.
Evidence is material if it is offered to prove a fact that is at issue in the case. For
example/ if I offer the testimony of an eyeitness to prove that it as rainin# on the dayof the si#nin# of a contract/ that evidence may be relevant to prove the fact for hich it isoffered/ yet the fact that it as or as not rainin# may be immaterial to any of the issues
in the case/ hich may turn entirely on hether one or both parties breached the contract.
The issues in the case are determined by the pleadin#s/ any formal stipulations oradmissions/ and the applicable la. For example/ if/ in a case of breach of contract/ the
defendant has conceded that the plaintiff performed all his covenants/ proof of that
performance ould no lon#er be material unless it ere relevant to some other issue.
@nder both the %alifornia and federal rules/ the concept of materiality is included in theconcept of relevance. Evid. %ode 2 ;579 Fed. Rules Evid. :57.
Evidence is competentif the proof that is bein# offered meets certain traditional
re8uirements of reliability. The preliminary shoin# that the evidence meets those tests/
and any other prere8uisites of admissibility/ is called the foundational evidence. Evid.%ode 2 :7;/ :7?. $hen an ob-ection is made that an anser to a 8uestion/ a document/ or
a thin# lac,s a proper foundation/ hat the ob-ector is really sayin# is that a shoin# of
competence/ or of another prere8uisite of admissibility/ has not yet been made. Themodern trend in the la is to diminish the importance of the rules of competence by
turnin# them into considerations of ei#ht. See, e.g./ Evid. %ode 2 3779 Fed. Rules Evid.
-
8/13/2019 149623726 a Summary of the Rules of Evidence
4/27
&oever/ here the value of evidence for its proper purpose is sli#ht and the li,elihood
that it ill be used for an improper purpose by a finder of fact is #reat/ a court may/ in its
discretion/ exclude the evidence even thou#h it ould otherise be admissible. Evid.%ode 2 ?6;9 Fed. Rules Evid. :7?. In this situation/ the probative value of the evidence is
said to be outei#hed by its pre-udicial effect.
're-udice means improperharm. The fact that evidence may be extremely harmful to one
party1s case does not necessarily ma,e it pre-udicial. %ourts also have discretion toexclude otherise admissible evidence to prevent confusion/ delay/ aste of time/ or the
needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Evid. %ode 2 ?6;9 Fed. Rules Evid. :7?.
IV. REAL EVIDENCE.
Real evidence is a thin# the existence or characteristics of hich are relevant and
material. It is usually a thin# that as directly involved in some event in the case. Theritten contract upon hich an action is based is real evidence both to prove its terms and
that it as executed by the defendant. If it is ritten in a falterin# and unsteady hand/ it
may also be relevant to sho that the riter as under duress at the time of its execution.
The bloody bloomers/ the murder eapon/ a crumpled automobile/ the scene of anaccidentCCall may be real evidence.
To be admissible/ real evidence/ li,e all evidence/ must be relevant/ material/ and
competent. Establishin# these basic prere8uisites/ and any other special ones that mayapply/ is called layin# a foundation. The relevance and materiality of real evidence are
usually obvious. Its competence is established by shoin# that it really is hat it is
supposed to be. 'rovin# that real or other evidence is hat it purports to be is calledauthentication. Evid. %ode 2 5:779 Fed. Rules Evid. 75.
Real evidence may be authenticated in three aysCCby identification of a uni8ue ob-ect/
by identification of an ob-ect that has been madeuni8ue/ and by establishin# a chain ofcustody. =ou only have to be able to use one of these ays/ thou#h it is prudent toprepare to use an alternate method in case the court is not satisfied ith the one you have
chosen.
The easiest and usually the least troublesome ay to authenticate real evidence is by the
testimony of a itness ho can identify a uni8ue ob-ect in court. For example/ the curatorof a museum may be able to testify that he is familiar ith/ say/ 'icasso1s Dames de
Avi#non and that hat has been mar,ed as exhibit soCandCso is in fact that seminal
or,. It is important to remember/ hoever/ that many more mundane ob-ects may beamenable to this ,ind of identification. A uni8ue contract/ or one that has been si#ned/
may be authenticated by a person ho is familiar ith the document or its si#natures. Arin# may have an inscription by hich it can be identified. Even a manufactured ob-ect/li,e a allet/ may be identifiable by its oner after years of use have #iven it a uni8ue
personality.
The second methodCCidentification in court of an ob-ect that has been made uni8ue/ is
extremely useful since it sometimes allos a layer or client to avoid the pitfalls ofprovin# a chain of custody by exercisin# some forethou#ht. If a itness ho can
-
8/13/2019 149623726 a Summary of the Rules of Evidence
5/27
establish an ob-ect1s relevance to the case mar,s it ith his si#nature/ initials/ or another
mar, that ill allo him to testify that he can tell it from all other ob-ects of its ,ind/ that
itness ill be alloed to identify the ob-ect in court and thus to authenticate it. "ften/ ifa member of the layer1s staff or another person early in the chain of custody mar,s the
evidence/ bi# problems can be avoided if a later lin, in the chain turns out to be missin#.
The third and least desirable ay to authenticate real evidence is by establishin# a chain
of custody. Establishin# a chain of custody re8uires that the hereabouts of the evidenceat all timessince the evidence as involved in the events at issue be established by
competent testimony.
The proponent of the evidence must also establish that the ob-ect/ in relevant respects/ has
not chan#ed or been altered beteen the events and the trial. This can sometimes be a tallorder/ or can re8uire the testimony of several itnesses. If there is any time from the
events in 8uestion to the day of trial durin# hich the location of the item cannot be
accounted for/ the chain is bro,en. In that case/ the evidence ill be excluded unlessanother method of authentication can be used.
V. DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE.
Demonstrative evidence is -ust hat the name impliesCCit demonstrates or illustrates the
testimony of a itness. It ill be admissible hen/ ith accuracy sufficient for the tas, at
hand/ it fairly and accurately reflects that testimony and is otherise unob-ectionable.Typical examples of demonstrative evidence are maps/ dia#rams of the scene of an
occurrence/ animations/ and the li,e. ecause its purpose is to illustrate testimony/
demonstrative evidence is authenticated by the itness hose testimony is bein#illustrated. That itness ill usually identify salient features of the exhibit and testify that
it fairly and accurately reflects hat he sa or heard on a particular occasion/ such as the
location of people or thin#s on a dia#ram.
For some time in %alifornia/ there as a controversy over hether photo#raphs ere onlydemonstrative in nature or hether they had evidentiary value independent of the
testimony of the itness ho authenticated them. This problem as particularly pressin#
hen there wasno itness ho could confirm hat the camera sa as/ for example/here crucial identifyin# photo#raphs ere ta,en by automatic cameras.
Fortunately/ the courts in this state seem to have reached the only sensible solution/
hich is that photo#raphs can be either real or demonstrative evidence dependin# on ho
they are authenticated. $hen a photo#raph is authenticated by a itness ho observedhat is depicted in it and can testify that it accurately reflects hat he sa/ the
photo#raph is demonstrative evidence. $hen it is authenticated by a technician or otheritness ho testifies about the operation of the e8uipment used to ta,e it/ it is realevidence and is/ in the lan#ua#e of the courts/ a silent itness.
VI. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.
Documentary evidence is often a ,ind of real evidence/ as for example here a contract is
offered to prove its terms. $hen a document is used this ay it is authenticated the same
-
8/13/2019 149623726 a Summary of the Rules of Evidence
6/27
ay as any other real evidenceCCby a itness ho identifies it or/ less commonly/ by
itnesses ho establish a chain of custody for it. &oever/ because they contain human
lan#ua#e/ and because of the historical development of the common la/ documentspresent special problems not presented by other forms of real evidence/ such as hen
they contain hearsay.
$hen dealin# ith documentary evidence/ it is a #ood idea to as, yourself four
8uestions>
5. Is there a parol evidence problem
;. Is there a best evidence problem
?. Is there an authentication problem
:. Is there a hearsay problem
The parol evidence rule/ hich bars the admission of extrinsic evidence to vary the terms
of a ritten a#reement/ is usually considered a matter of substantive la/ not of rule ofevidence. Accordin#ly/ e ill not deal ith it here.
As has been noted above/ documents can be authenticated the same ay as any other real
evidence. Evid. %ode 2 5:77/ 5:75/ 5:57C5:5
-
8/13/2019 149623726 a Summary of the Rules of Evidence
7/27
usually means photocopy/ the chance of a copy bein# in error/ as opposed to simply
ille#ible/ is sli#ht. In addition/ courts are reluctant to re8uire needless effort and delay
here there is no dispute about the fairness and ade8uacy of a photocopy.
Accordin#ly/ both %alifornia la and the federal rules allo the use of mechanicallyproduced duplicates unless a party has raised a #enuine 8uestion about the accuracy of
the copy or can sho that its use ould be unfair. Evid. %ode 22 5677 et se8.9 Fed. Rules
Evid. 577?. &oever/ there is alays a dan#er of a party 8uestionin# a document/ so it isimportant to remember that/ unless you have a stipulation to the contrary/ or your
document fits one of the exceptions listed in the statute/ you must be ready to produce
ori#inals of any documents involved in your case or to produce evidence of hy you
can1t.
@nder both %alifornia la and the federal rules/ compilations or summaries of
voluminous records may be received here the ori#inals are available for examination by
the other parties. Evid. %ode 2 567.
VII. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE.
Testimonial evidence is the most basic form of evidence and the only ,ind that does not
usually re8uire another form of evidence as a prere8uisite for its admissibility. *ee Evid.
%ode 2 37;bB9 Fed R. Evid.
5. &e must/ ith understandin#/ ta,e the oath or a substitute. Evid. %ode 22 357/ 3759
Fed. Rules Evid.
-
8/13/2019 149623726 a Summary of the Rules of Evidence
8/27
permits virtually any ,ind of affirmation by hich the itness/ in effect/ promises to tell
the truth. Evid. %ode 2 5
-
8/13/2019 149623726 a Summary of the Rules of Evidence
9/27
memory/ he must identify it as one that he made or sa hen he did remember the fact in
8uestion and that he ,ne then that the ritin# as accurate. Evid. %ode 2 5;?3. $ith
past recollection recorded/ the itness never ansers the 8uestion and the ritin# is theevidence.
ecause it is an out of court statement that is offered to prove the truth of its content/ a
past recollection recorded is hearsay. &oever/ it is admissible under its on exception
to the hearsay rule. Evid. %ode 2 5;?3aB9 Fed. Rules Evid. 47?6B. In addition/ li,e anyother documentary evidence/ a past recollection recorded must meet the re8uirements of
the best evidence rule. @nli,e other documentary evidence/ hile a past recollection
recorded may be read into the record/ it may not be shon to the -urors or ta,en ith
them hen they retire to deliberate. Id.
ias/ interest/ pre-udice/ and other #rounds to doubt the credibility of a itness #o only to
the ei#ht of his testimony and do not affect his competence. In particular/ it is not a
valid ob-ection to say that a statement by a itness is selfCservin#. 'resumably/ most orall statements by party itnesses are or are intended to be self servin#.
VIII. FORM OF E"AMINATION.
"n direct examination/ you are #enerally not permitted to as, leadin# 8uestions. Fed.
Rules Evid. $hen you entered the room did you see the defendant there
A> =es.
> $as he visibly a#itated
A> =es.
> Did you as, him hether he intended to deliver the #oods you had ordered
A> =es.
> Did he tell you that he had no intention of doin# so
-
8/13/2019 149623726 a Summary of the Rules of Evidence
10/27
A> =es.
"ther cases are not so clear>
> $hen you met the defendant that ni#ht/ hat as his physical condition
A> &e as sayin# from side to side.
> Did he seem to you to be drun,
A> =es.
As you can see/ in many ays/ leadin# is a matter of de#ree/ and borderline cases arematters of -ud#ment and ithin the court1s discretion/ as is the 8uestion of hen to allo
such leadin# 8uestions on direct. +ost of the time/ hen an ob-ection is sustained to a
leadin# 8uestion/ it is not difficult to rephrase the 8uestion to ma,e it unob-ectionable>
> $hen you sa the defendant that ni#ht/ as he drun,
%ounsel> "b-ection. !eadin#.
%ourt> *ustained.
> $hat as the defendant1s physical condition hen you sa him
A> &e as drun, as a s,un,.
As this last exchan#e shos/ not only is elicitin# testimony ith nonleadin# 8uestions
proper/ it is also usually more effective to let the itness tell the story if he can.
!eadin# 8uestions are permitted on direct in several circumstances. $e have already
discussed the propriety of a leadin# 8uestion to refresh a itness1s recollection. !eadin#
8uestions are also usually permitted in dealin# ith matters of bac,#round/ or to direct
the itness1s attention to a particular time and place or to a particular aspect of asituation. For example/ the folloin# should usually be permitted>
> $ere you at *loppy !ouie1s on the evenin# of the tenty fifth of (anuary
A> =es.
> Did you see the defendant1s car par,ed outside
A> =es.
> $as there anyone inside the car
A> =es.
-
8/13/2019 149623726 a Summary of the Rules of Evidence
11/27
> $ho
A> The defendant/ that dirty rotten s,un,.
%ounsel> I move to stri,e everythin# after the defendant as unresponsive/ irrelevant/
incompetent/ immaterial/ and pre-udicial.
%ourt> *o stric,en.
In the example above/ hile part of the itness1s answeras ob-ectionable for otherreasons/ the questioningould probably not be considered improper/ althou#h the first
three 8uestions mi#ht be considered leadin#.
!eadin# 8uestions may be alloed here/ in the -ud#e1s sound discretion/ they ill helpto elicit the testimony of a itness ho/ due to tender a#e/ incapacity/ or limited
intelli#ence/ is havin# trouble communicatin# his evidence. Fed. Rules Evid. *o stric,en. The -ury is instructed to disre#ard the last anser.
"f course/ the dama#e may already be done.
The problem ith the leadin# rule and narrative rule is that/ if they are bothinterpreted broadly/ they can completely prevent any meanin#ful examination. This is anarea here the advocate must be alert to the -ud#e1s preferences.
"n cross examination/ leadin# 8uestions are #enerally permitted and often necessary or
desirable. Evid. %ode 2 3
-
8/13/2019 149623726 a Summary of the Rules of Evidence
12/27
%ross examination is only permitted to in8uire into sub-ects that ere raised upon direct/
includin# credibility. Evid. %ode 2 3
-
8/13/2019 149623726 a Summary of the Rules of Evidence
13/27
3. "nership. Strauss v. 'ubuque "ire ( Marine Ins. o.5??B 5?; %al.App. ;4?/ ;:/
;; '.;d 64;.
4. The value of one1s on property. Evid. %ode 2 45?9 Schroeder v. )uto 'riveaway o.
53:B 55 %al.?d 74/ ;5/ 55: %al.Rptr.
-
8/13/2019 149623726 a Summary of the Rules of Evidence
14/27
may call another itness or offer other evidence to sho that it as in fact too dar, for
him to have seen hat he says he did.
The other five ays to attac, credibility are to attempt to sho
5. bias/ pre-udice/ interest/ or corruption/
;. criminal convictions/
?. prior bad acts/
:. prior inconsistent statements/ or
6. untruthful character.
The first four of these methods re8uire that/ before the itness is 8uestioned concernin#
the relevant facts/ counsel have a #ood faith basis to believe that the facts to be as,ed
about are true. These methods differ ith respect to hen extrinsic evidence is permitted
to prove the facts based upon hich the itness1s credibility is bein# attac,ed.
It is error not to allo in8uiry into possible bias/ pre-udice/ interest/ or corruption. Evid.
%ode 2 347 fB. In addition/ extrinsic evidence of bias is alays admissible.
@nder the federal rules/ a itness may #enerally be 8uestioned about criminalconvictions hen the crime as punishable by a sentence of more than a year or involved
fraud or false statement. There are other limits relatin# to the a#e of the conviction/ to a
itness ho is also the accused in a criminal case/ and to -uvenile ad-udications that youshould learn before you attempt to offer such evidence.
In %alifornia/ a itness may #enerally be 8uestioned about criminal convictions only ifthe convictions are for felonies and the itness has not been pardoned for innocence/
been #ranted a certificate of relief from civil disabilities/ or obtained other similar relief.Evid. %ode 2 344. @nder both sets of rules/ if the itness denies a criminal conviction/ it
may only be proved by offerin# a certified record of the conviction.
The federal rules allo 8uestions about prior bad acts of a itness to impeach credibility
here/ in the court1s discretion/ they are probative of truthfulness. Fed. Rules Evid.
5. The 8uestioner must have a #ood faith basis for believin# that the inconsistentstatement as made.
-
8/13/2019 149623726 a Summary of the Rules of Evidence
15/27
;. The itness must be reminded of the time/ place/ and circumstances of the statement.
This re8uirement is dispensed ith in %alifornia. Evid. %ode 2 3
-
8/13/2019 149623726 a Summary of the Rules of Evidence
16/27
The testimony of itnesses used to impeach the veracity of another itness may be
impeached in the same ays as that of other itnesses. In particular/ here a itness has
offered an opinion of the honesty or reputation for honesty of another itness/ thecharacter itness may be as,ed hether he ,ne of/ or hether his opinion ould have
been influenced by/ ,noled#e of various alle#ed misdeeds of the tar#et itness. Fed.
Rules Evid.
-
8/13/2019 149623726 a Summary of the Rules of Evidence
17/27
bad character for the same traits to sho that he acted in conformity ith that character.
Evid. %ode 2 557;9 Fed. Rules Evid. :7:aB5B. A criminal defendant may also offer
evidence of the character of a victim of a crime to sho action in conformity ith it.Evid. %ode 2 557?9 :7:aB;B. $hen he does so/ the prosecutor may respond in ,ind. Id.
The different ,inds of character evidence are a perennial source of confusion/ and care
must be ta,en to ,eep them distinct. The character of truth!ulnessof any witness/
includin# a criminal defendant/ is placed in issue hen he testi!ies/ and is received tosho action in conformity ith it. The character of a criminal de!endantor his alle#ed
victim for other traitsof character to sho action or nonaction in conformity ith it is
put in issue only hen the defendant calls a character itness. The character of other
personscan be in issue in a variety of ays/ but it cannotbe used to sho action inconformity ith it.
"II. THE RULE A!AINST HEARSAY.
The rule a#ainst hearsay is simply stated/ sometimes confusin# to apply/ and riddled ith
exceptions. Evid. %ode 2 5;77bB9 Fed. Rules Evid. 47;. =ou all ,no it. &earsay
evidence is evidence of a statement that as made other than by a itness hiletestifyin# at the hearin# in 8uestion and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter
stated. Evid. %ode 2 5;77aB9 Fed. Rules Evid. 475cB. A statement can be in ords orconduct that is intended by the actor as a substitute for ords. Evid. %ode 2 ;;6. The first
step in any analysis of possible hearsay is the determination of hether the statement
bein# offered is in fact hearsay. If the statement is nothearsay/ the analysis ends. If thestatement is hearsay/ step to is a determination of hether the hearsay statement fits
into one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.
*ince evidence of an out of court statement that is used to prove somethin# other than the
truth of its content is not hearsay/ hether a statement is hearsay may depend on hy it is
bein# offered. If a statement has a possible use as hearsay and another nonhearsaypurpose/ it is #enerally admissible sub-ect to a limitin# instruction if re8uested/ and
sub-ect to the court1s discretion to ,eep it out if the -ud#e believes that its pre-udicial
effect outei#hs its probative value. As a result/ the folloin# out of court statements arenot hearsay>
5. &elpH &elp is not a statement about a fact/ it is a cry for assistance and cannot be
either true or false. $hether/ even if it ere hearsay/ it ould be sub-ect to the exceptionfor an excited utterance is beside the point.
;. I accept your offer. This is also not a statement of fact that can be true or false. In/ a
contract action/ the issue ould not be hether these ords ere true/ but hether theyeresaid.
?. (onesie is a lo don rotten scoundrel. If offered to sho that the spea,er had amotive to ,ill (onesie/ rather than to sho that (onesie is in fact a lo don rotten
scoundrel/ evidence of this statement ould not be hearsay. If the evidence ere offered
to prove that (onesie isa scoundrel/ it wouldbe hearsay/ and probably also ob-ectionableon other #rounds.
-
8/13/2019 149623726 a Summary of the Rules of Evidence
18/27
-
8/13/2019 149623726 a Summary of the Rules of Evidence
19/27
;. Excited utterances or spontaneous statements. Evid. %ode 2 5;:7.
?. *tatements about the declarant1s then existin# mental/ emotional/ or physical condition.
Evid. %ode 22 5;67/ 5;6;.
:. *tatements made by the declarant for the purpose of medical dia#nosis or treatment.
6. 'ast recollections recorded. Evid. %ode 2 5;?3.
-
8/13/2019 149623726 a Summary of the Rules of Evidence
20/27
;?. (ud#ments of a court concernin# personal history/ family history/ #eneral history/ or
boundaries/ here those matters ere essential to the -ud#ment.
;:. The catchall rule.
Fed. Rules Evid. 47?.
The federal exceptions that dore8uire proof that the declarant is unavailable are>
5. Former testimony of a itness offered a#ainst a party here that party/ or apredecessor in interest ith similar motives/ had an opportunity to 8uestion the declarant.
See alsoEvid. %ode 22 5;7/ 5;5/ 5;;.
;. Dyin# declarations. See alsoEvid. %ode 2 5;:;.
?. *tatements a#ainst interest. See alsoEvid. %ode 2 5;;:/ 5;;6/ 5;?7.
:. *tatements by certain persons of personal or family history. See alsoEvid. %ode 2
5?57/ 5?55. Fed. Rules Evid. 47:.
+ost of %alifornia1s hearsay exceptions are contained in *ections 5;;7 throu#h 5?67 of
the Evidence %ode. =ou should read these sections/ since even here a similar exceptionis reco#ni0ed under both sets of rules there are often differences in the scope of the
exceptions. %alifornia la does not have exceptions that are as broad as the federal
exceptions for learned treatises or as the catchall provision. &oever/ it does have
additional exceptions/ not explicitly found in the federal rules/ for the folloin#>
5. Evidence of a statement by a minor child if offered in certain actions a#ainst a person
alle#ed to have in-ured the child. Evid. %ode 2 5;;
-
8/13/2019 149623726 a Summary of the Rules of Evidence
21/27
4. *tatements concernin# the family history of another here the declarant is unavailable
under certain circumstances. Evid. %ode 2 5?55.
. *tatements concernin# boundaries. Evid. %ode 2 5?;?.
57. %ertain statements in serious felony prosecutions. Evid. %ode 2 5?67.
55. %ertain statements by unavailable declarants concernin# in-uries inflicted on them.Evid. %ode 2 5?67.
*ometimes a layer ill ant to present evidence that consists of multiple levels of
hearsay. For example/ suppose I ant to introduce a patient1s hospital file to sho that
hen he as struc, by the defendant he be#an bleedin# from the head. The hospital1s file/hich is hat I ant to offer/ has a note by the staff physician on duty sayin# that/ hen
the patient came to the emer#ency room for treatment/ he told the staff physician that
hen he as hit by the defendant he be#an bleedin# profusely from the head. The onlylive itness I have is a records cler, from the hospital.
+y evidence in this case consists of double hearsay. The hospital record is an out of courtstatement offered to prove the truth of its contentCChat the patient told the emer#ency
room physician. In addition/ even if I could call the physician as a itness/ his testimonyconcernin# hat the patient told him ould also be hearsay/ since it ould be offered to
sho that the patient did in fact start bleedin# hen the defendant hit him. Thus/ I have
one hearsay declarationCCthe patient1s statement about hat happened to himCCrapped inanother hearsay declarationCCthe doctor1s statement about hat the patient said.
The analysis for multiple hearsay is simple if it is ta,en one step at a time. The rule is
that/ in order for multiple hearsay to be admissible/ there must be an exception to the
hearsay rule that is applicable to each level of the hearsay. Evid. %ode 2 5;759 Fed. Rules
Evid. 476. The best ay to start the analysis is to ima#ine the ultimate eyeitness on thestand. In this case it is the patient. &is statement is not hearsay and ould be admissible
if it is relevant to the case.
)ext/ ima#ine the person ho forms the next lin, in the chain of hearsay on the stand. Inthis case it is the doctor. &is testimony ould clearly be hearsay. &oever/ the doctor1s
ima#inary testimony about the patient1s statement mi#ht ell be admissible under the
excited utterance exception or/ in Federal %ourt/ the exception for statements made in aidof medical treatment or/ in state court/ the exception for statements about the declarant1s
prior physical condition. )ext/ ima#ine offerin# the medical record that contains the
doctor1s statement. It may be sub-ect to the hearsay exception for business records and
therefore be admissible to prove that the doctor made the statement if a proper foundationis laid throu#h the custodian of records.
Thus/ it loo,s li,e the medical record comes in to prove that the patient did start to bleed
from the head hen he as struc,. "n the other hand/ if any level of the hearsay fails tofall ithin an exception/ the proof ill not be received. All multiple hearsay problems/ no
matter ho involved/ ill ultimately yield to the same type of analysis.
-
8/13/2019 149623726 a Summary of the Rules of Evidence
22/27
The credibility of a hearsay declarant may be attac,ed in the same ays as that of any
itness. Evid. %ode 2 5;7;.
"III. RIVILE!ES.
Evidentiary privile#es are ri#hts held by certain persons that allo them either to refuseto provide evidence or to prevent evidence from bein# offered a#ainst them. 'rivile#es
are contrary to the #eneral rules that all relevant and competent evidence is admissibleand that every citi0en has an obli#ation to #ive evidence in a -udicial proceedin#. Evid.
%ode 2 55. 'rivile#es also hinder the basic function of the -udicial system/ hich is thesearch for truth. Accordin#ly/ privile#es only exist to serve important interests and
relationships/ they are construed narroly/ and ne ones are rarely created/ at least by the
courts.
*ince privile#es are meant to vindicate a private or public interest in confidentiality/ andsince they are disfavored/ they can be aived by the persons or entities they are meant to
protect. The person or persons ho can aive the privile#e are called holders of the
privile#e. $here more than one person holds a privile#e/ sometimes the act of only one is
re8uired to aive it and sometimes an act of both is re8uired. Evid. %ode 2 5;. In manycases/ the nonholder ho is a party to a privile#ed communication is re8uired to assert
the privile#e on behalf of the holder.
In %alifornia/ no adverse inference may be dran from the exercise of a privile#e in any,ind of case. Evid. %ode 2 5?. In federal courts/ an adverse inference may sometimes be
dran in a civil case or administrative proceedin#.*axter v. #almigiano53
5. The privile#e a#ainst selfCincrimination. Evid. %ode 2 :7 et se8.
;. The attorneyCclient privile#e. This one is held by the client. Evid. %ode 2 67 et se8.
?. The privile#e of a married person not to testify a#ainst his spouse. Evid. %ode 2 37.This one belon#s to the spouse called to testify.
:. The privile#e for confidential marital communications. Evid. %ode 2 47 et se8. This
one belon#s to both spouses.
-
8/13/2019 149623726 a Summary of the Rules of Evidence
23/27
6. The physicianCpatient privile#e. Evid. %ode 2 7 et se8. This one belon#s to the
patient. Evid. %ode 2 ?.
-
8/13/2019 149623726 a Summary of the Rules of Evidence
24/27
In %alifornia/ presumptions are either conclusive or rebuttable. Evid. %ode 2
-
8/13/2019 149623726 a Summary of the Rules of Evidence
25/27
list of the most common conclusive presumptions is #iven in the Evidence %ode startin#
at *ection
-
8/13/2019 149623726 a Summary of the Rules of Evidence
26/27
based upon the erroneous reception of the hearsay. =ou also have no ri#ht to ar#ue your
opposition to ob-ections/ thou#h a -ud#e may permit you to do so.
ecause of the lac, of a ri#ht to ar#ue ob-ections/ it is important for you to attempt to
anticipate si#nificant evidentiary issues and to brief them in a motion in limine/ hich issubmitted to the court at the be#innin# of the trial. If you raise an evidentiary issue in a
motion in limine/ you should refer to the motion hen the evidence in 8uestion comes up/
but doin# so does notrelieve you of the obli#ation of specifyin# the #rounds of yourob-ection at that time and ma,in# an offer of proof if necessary.
If you are offerin# evidence and an ob-ection is sustained/ in order to preserve the
exclusion as a possible #round for appeal you must ma,e an offer of proof. Evid. %ode 2
?6:9 Fed. Rules Evid. 57?aB;B. $hen the rulin# is made/ as, the court for anopportunity to ma,e such an offer. @sually this is done outside the presence of the -ury/
often at the next brea, in the testimony. Evid. %ode 2 :7;9 Fed. Rules Evid. 57?cB. Thus/
it is important to ,eep a runnin# list of any such offers you need to ma,e since/ if youfor#et/ you ill not be able to complain of the rulin# on appeal. A proper offer must
include a description of the substance/ purpose/ and relevance of the evidence that you
ould present if permitted. Evid. %ode 2 ?6:9 Fed. Rules Evid. 57?aB;B.
An offer of proof/ can also provide you ith a means of miti#ate the effect of the rule thatyou have no ri#ht to ar#ue evidentiary rulin#s. A ell formulated offer of proof can
sometimes persuade the court that its initial decision to exclude your evidence as
incorrect.
"VII. MISCELLANEOUS OTHER RULES.
A list of other commonly encountered rules follos>
5. Evidence of subse8uent remedial measures is not admissible to sho previousne#li#ence or culpable conduct. Evid. %ode 2 55659 Fed. Rules Evid. :73.
;. Evidence of mediation or settlement discussions is not admissible to prove liability for
the claims that ere bein# discussed. Evid. %ode 2 556;/ 556;.69 Fed. Rules Evid. :74.)or is evidence of the payment of medical expenses to sho liability. Fed. Rules Evid.
:7. )or/ in %alifornia/ is evidence of partial satisfaction of any asserted claim to prove
the validity of the claim. Evid. %ode 2 556;. )or is evidence of a #uilty plea that is laterithdran/ nor any statements made in connection ith it. Evid. %ode 2 556?9 Fed. Rules
Evid. :57.
?. The court may call its on itnesses and may 8uestion any itness. Evid. %ode 2 3369Fed. Rules Evid.
-
8/13/2019 149623726 a Summary of the Rules of Evidence
27/27
"VIII. CONCLUSION.
$hile this hirlind summary of the la of evidence is by no means complete/ if you
have mastered the concepts it contains and read the materials su##ested/ you ill be able
to deal ith the vast ma-ority of evidentiary problems that you ill encounter and illusually have a #ood idea hen you need to loo, up a rule or statute or to research the
cases.+nowledgeof the rules of evidence ill enable you to put your proof before the
finder of fact and maybe to ,eep some of your opponent1s proof from bein# received.on!idencein your ,noled#e of the rules ill free you to concentrate on the ,ind of
effective presentation and ar#ument that ill help you to in your case.
SELECT REFERENCES
5. Federal Rules of Evidence. The federal rules are short/ and you should read themthrou#h/ includin# the notes of the advisory committee and con#ressional committees.
;. . (efferson/ ali!ornia vidence *ench *oo-. +any -ud#es consider this treatise to beholy rit. =ou ill see it on many of their benches.
?. . $it,in/ ali!ornia vidence. The other leadin# treatise on %alifornia1s la of
evidence.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/overview.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/overview.html