rules chart

8/2/2019 Rules Chart

1/18

CHARACTER EVIDENCE RULES

Rule Description Rule # Rqmts Cases NotesConditionalRelevance

104(b) Where the relevancy of evidence depends upon the fulfillment of a

condition of fact, the court shall admit it upon, or subject to, theintroduction of evidence sufficient to support a findingfulfillment of the condition.THEORY: Sometimes an item of evidence by itselfHuddleston

Fitzhugh (her sonshows awarenessthat not HIS son)Cox v. State (didaccused know aboutbond hearing? Onlyrelevant if he knewabout bond hearingoutcome)

Prob. 3.13(robber on trial,acquitted in firstcase, able to bebrought inrelated case b/cdiff. standards(beyondreasonable doubtv. preponderanceof evidence)

Relevance 401 Probative; Evidence must have any

tendency [low threshold] to makethe existence of any fact more probableor less probable than it would be withoutthe evidence.

Material; Evidence must bear onany fact that is of consequence tothe determination of the action.

James ( s daughter

shot victim)

Is it

relevant? 3Questions to Ask1. What issue(s) isthe fact-finderbeing asked todetermine in thiscase?2. Does thetestimony (or theother evidence)

bear on a fact thatis material (ofconsequence) tothatdetermination?AND3. Does thetestimony (or theevidence) tend to

1


2/18

make thedetermination ofthat fact more orless probable?

402 -all relevant evidence is admissible unlessprohibited by the US Const., Congress, or

SCOTUSExclusion of RelevantEvidence b/c ofPrejudice

403 Two prong test:-probative value (PV)-risk of unfair prejudice (RUF)-PV must be SUBSTANTIALLY outweighed byUnfair Prej.-could be issue of delay, undue waste oftime

Flight

1) Ds behavior flight

2) Flight consciousness of guilt

3) consciousness of guilt to consciousnessof guiltof this crime charged4) to consciousness of guilt of this crime

charged actual guilt

State v. Bocharski(gruesome photos)Serge (CGAno facialfeatures, sound, etc. tomake prejudicial)People v. Collins(probability evidence)

-can take steps tomake things lessprejudicial-doesnt apply to609

-Johnson (bankrobber in NY,arrested later in Ga;stippeople will

think bank robberyspree; so D can sayhe was in Ga andused a fake name

-Myers (bankrobber in Fla, Pa,and flight in cali,flight not allowed inb/c would have hadto rebut that with

robbery in Pa, andmuch time b/w mallsighting and flightthere

Character of Accused 404(a)(1)

-criminal case-evidence of pertinent character trait offeredby accused (REPUTATION OR OPINION)-offered by prosecution to rebut

Character of Alleged 404(a) -criminal case

2


3/18

Victim (2) -evidence of pertinent character trait ofalleged victim (limited by Rape Shield Law-412) offered by an accused-by the prosecution to rebutevidence of a character trait ofpeacefulness of the alleged victim offered bythe prosecution in a homicide case to rebutevidence that the alleged victim was the firstaggressor

Character of Witness 404(a)(3)

-as provided by 607, 608, 609 See 607/608/609

Propensity Box:Other Crimes,wrongs, acts

404(b) -NOT ADMISSIBLE to prove character ofperson in order to show action in conformitytherewith.-MAY BE ADMISSIBLE to prove:

Proof of motive

Opportunity

Intent, preparation, plan, knowledge- Silicon valley/kid with comps

problem-Common plan in domesticviolence not allowed in

Identity (MODUS OPERANDI)

Narrative IntegrityRussian Roulette example

Absence of mistake or accident

Peltier (Motive)Guy killed twoFBI agents

Trenkler (M.O. Must be morethan single

prosaiccommonality)

Rex v. Smith(Doctrine ofChances)

U.S. v. DeGeorgeNarrativeIntegrity/inextricably intertwined1) Evidence is partof transaction that

is basis for charge2) need evidence topresent coherentstoryhere whyguy couldnt buyboat insurance(but can still redactabout the otherboats being sunk)

REVERSE 404(b) 404(b) Only 403no risk of prejudice to to Gov U.S. v. Stephens -

Only usedexculpatorily

Sufficiently similar tobring in propensityevidence

Prob. 3.9

Stevens misreadNot similar,

just propensityevidence

Methods of ProvingCharacter

405(a) -Reputation or opinion ONLY on direct-On cross-examination, inquiry is allowedinto relevant specific instances of conduct-no extrinsic evidence

Michelson (D broughtin 5 char Ws to

honesty; Pros did youknow his 1920 arrest,said they knew him

W testifies aboutD or V

3


4/18

then)

Specific Instances ofConduct

405(b) -Where character is in issue, the parties canshow specific instances of conduct eitherparty can bring in evidence at any pointbecause not trying to draw inference ofcharacter

-Reasonable Fear for safety in self-defense(James) Prob. 3.17

Essential element is that D have beenreasonably in fear NOT that victimhave been violent person.

-D need not enter evidence of victims

violent nature can offer evidencethat victim attacked first causing D tobe fearful.

Common instances where 405(b) occurs:specific instances allowed on direct-Rebutting entrapment defense-Rebutting a defense of truth in libel orslander action-Resolving parental custody dispute-Negligence entrustment or supervision

like train crash problem, 3.3

Prob. 3.18That V was high on

drugs at time of fightand that made himaggressive, goesaround propensityboxnot hindered by404(a)(2)

Evidence of Habit 406 -does not require same inference aspropensity

-may have probative value-Facts: Frequency, automatic/semi-automatic nature, AND variability.

Halloran v. VirginiaChemical (lack of

volition/predictabilityhelps determine habit)

Prob. 3.19, that doctorprescribed the wrongpills to eight people outof a possible hundredisnt habit

Drug addictionsdont count, nor

previous assaults toprove this one,basically not badbehavior allow- that person isobserving Sabbathand not outcommitting thiscrime isnt a habit

Subsequent Remedial 407 -inadmissible to prove negligence, culpability Tuer v. McDonald Policy Question

4


5/18

Measures -may come in if offered to show ownership,control, feasibility of precautions, BUT ONLYIF CONTROVERTED-may come in to IMPEACH

(defines feasibility). - applies instrict liability

- 3rd partyrepairs notbarred, butlowprobativevalue

- safest/bestpossible iscontrovertingfeasibility

Compromise andOffers

408 408(a)(1): offers during negotiations maynot be used

408(a)(2): conduct or stmts made duringnegotiations inadmissible EXCEPT:-offered to prove OTHER things:

-witness bias from previous settlement-but cant use to impeach thru priorinconsistment stmt-lack of undue delay-obstruction of crim. invest.

OR-offered in crim case and negotiations withpublic office (SEE RULE)

Bankcard America(we want to encouragesettlementsbut notuse as shield)

Prob. 2.4 Ramada

(report was allowed tobe excluded because itwas forming the basis ofnegoitions)

-claim must havealready been madeto get protection.-prior inconsistentstatements, if madeduring compromise

negs, cannot comein.-COMPARED TO409:-protects stmtssurroundingnegotiations (unlike409)-Doesnt applywhen gettingcreditors to settle

- stms made duringcivil claims arentallowed in incriminal (exceptwith gov)-this extends tothird parties (rulebars that)

Payment of Med 409 -cannot be used to prove liability -stmts like Im

5


6/18

Expenses sorry can come in

Withdrawal of GuiltyPlea

Think CRIMINAL

410 -guilty plea later withdrawn inadmissible.-does not exempt witnesses, only defendants-

U.S. v. Biaggi(guy can use rejectingimmunity deal againstPros, rejecting a plea isundecided)

-talking to cop noexcluded unlessPros gives authorityto make deals(some courts willlet it innevertheless,subject standard)- if again

Liability Insurance 411 -evidence of liability insurances notadmissible on the issue of whether theperson acted negligently or wrongfully-may come in for other purposes, such as toprove: agency, ownership, control,bias/prejudice of witness

Williams v. McCoy (Ponly wanted to mentionDs insurance as to whyshe hired a lawyer, Dsadjuster visited hernot to show liability)

- Prob 2.7 (allowedfor D in crim of useit, crim not civil;using insurance notto show morecareless, but lack ofmotive)

Rape Shield Law 412 Not allowed:-evidence offered to prove alleged victimengaged in other sexual behavior-evidence to prove victims sexualpredispositionExceptions:412(b)(1)(A) specific instances offeredto prove that person other than accusedsource of semen, injury, physical evidence.412(b)(1)(B) specific instances prove

consent w/ D,- this could include talk and fantasies

412(b)(1)(C) evidence that would violatedconstitutional rights412(b)(2) allowed in civil cases if passesreverse 403 only admissible if reputationhas been placed in controversy by allegedvictim.

State v. Smith (if itsabout false rapeaccusations, not pastsexual behavior, so 412doesnt apply)mustpass Huddlestonstandardjust mustfind that past falseaccusations occurredOlden v. Kentucky

(allowed if goes toshowing bias)constissueStephens v. Miller(narrative integrity, butlimited)cant say doingit doggy fashion andwith Tim HallU.S. v. Knox(inadmissible case is

6


7/18

about whether she wasawake or not, pastbehavior irrelevant)

Sexual Assault 413 -criminal case-D accused of offense of sexual assault-evidence of Ds prior sexual offenseadmissible-will be considered for all relevant matters-still must comply with strict 403balancing test

U.S. v. Mound (413does not violate DueProcess)

U.S. v. Guardia:403 notrestrained;OB/GYN accused ofassaulting patients4 other victimsbrought innotallowed, becauseexperts would beneeded to test. for

each ones caremini-trial

Child Molestation 414 -criminal case-D accused of child molestation-evidence of Ds prior molestation acts

admissible-will be considered for all relevant matters

STATE CASES that dontfollow 414:-Lannan v. State, State

v. Kirsch.

Civil Cases, sexcrimes alleged

415 -civil case in which a claim for damages orother relief is predicated on a party's allegedcommission of conduct constituting anoffense of sexual assault or child molestation-evidence of Ds prior sexual acts admissibleunder 413, 414.

WITNESSES (NOT EXPERT AND LAY TESTIMONY)

Rule Description Rule # Rqmts Cases NotesFirst-hand knowledge 602 W needs personal

knowledgeShepard

Competency of Jurorsas Witnesses

606(b) Tanner

Either party mayimpeach a Witness

607

7


8/18

Reputation and opiniononly: Witness characterfor untruthfulness

608(a) -opinion or reputationONLY-must pertain totruthfulness-party MAY supportcharacter for truththrough propensity boxAFTER character fortruthfulness attacked-opponent may rebutwith evidence ofwitness character fortruthfulness

U.S. v. Whitmore

No Extrinsic Evidence

Remember: If youcant get it in under609, cannotbackdoor through608

Specific instances onCross on truthfulness

608(b) -on cross, party mayask of SPECIFICINSTANCES-must be probative

oftruthfulness/untruthfulness-counsel must havegood faith reasonablebasis for asking thequestions-extrinsic evidencebarred!

No Extrinsic Evidence Remember: If youcant get it in under609, cannotbackdoor through

608

Criminal ConvictionsFor Witness

609(a)(1) -subject to 403 for Wis the Probative value

sub. Outweighed byUnfair Prej- -must be punishablemore than one year-Use 609(b): Time limit.Must have beenreleased less than 10years ago. REVERSE403 HERE if >10 yearsold?

Allowed as soon as Dtakes the stand, doesnt

need to test. toanything

Dont forget to see ifjuvenile (never used

against D)

8


9/18

Criminal convictions foraccused

609(a)(1) MODIFIED 403 (Probvalue > unfair prej) USE BREWER FACTORSProb value mustoutweigh unfair prej. Ifa tie, doesnt come in

Extrinsic evidenceallowed

U.S. v. Brewerfactors:1) Nature of crime,

acts of violence haveno bearing on honesty2.) time ofconviction,

D may have had directconflict with law whileon parole3.) similarity tocharged crime,

if similar, then exclude4.) importance of dstestimony

importance favorsnonadmission5.) centrality ofcredibility issue) is Ds credibility acentral issue, thatfavors admission

Prob 4.4

B/c Ds prior is excludedunder 404(b), doesntmean it will be under609

404(b) is probative ofguilt, 609 of veracity intestimony

Luce & Ohler if trialjudge wrongly admitspast convictions toimpeach D, 2

conditions for appeal1) D must have test. attrial (Luce)2) Pros. Must haveintros evidence ofcontested conviction(Ohler)

Crimen falsi 609(a)(2) -crimes of dishonesty,always admissible,

regardless ofpunishment.-NO 403 BALANCINGTEST

still subject to (b) and(d)

Note: NO 403Balancing Test Here

Criminal convictionsand time lime

609(b) If over ten years,reverse 403 to get it inBrewer Factors foraccused

Judge from whenreleased or whenreleased from being putback on paroleOr, if conviction is laterthan release

Reverse 403 testProb value has tosubstantially outweighunfair prej

9


10/18

Crim convictions andjuvenile adjudication

609(d) If necessary for a fairdetermination of guiltor innocence

Never against accused

Writing used to refreshmemory

612 Think b-day cake Cf. 803(5)

Prior stmt of Witness toimpeach

613 -This is just to impeachto credibilitynottruth of the matterasserted-Declarant must havetestified

see chart at end forMiranda and silence

Barret ( robber) andInce (gov cantimpeach own witness2nd time around just tobring in priorconfession)

All that 613(b) requires

before extrinsic evidence ofa prior inconsistent

statement can be introducedis that the witness be given

a chance to explain or deny

the statement

LAY AND EXPERT TESTIMONY

LayTestimony

701 1) W had first-hand knowledge2) Aids fact-finder3) Not based on scientific knowledge in scope of

702

Garnier(guy test.to complicationword program)

Lay person cantest. to presenseof drugs if within

their knowledgeExpert

Testimony

702 1) Test based on sufficient facts or data2) test. is product of reliable princimples and methods3) W applied reliable in this case

Johnson (test. totype of pot)Jinro (no nexis b/whis qualificationsand what hestest. about)

Think if commonsense could beoff

5 things to lookfor1) properqualifications2) proper topic

10


11/18

3) sufficientbasis4) relevant andreliable methods5) 403 challenge

Opinion onUltimateissues

704 A) Test. as in opinion or inference otherwiseadmissible is not objectionable because itembraces utilmate issue to be decided by fact-finder

B) Expert witness test. about mental state cantstate an opinion or inference to if D did or didnthave mental state as to crime charged

Hygh v. Jacobs(W cannot definewhat deadly forceiscannot steponto judges role)

HEARSAY RULES

RuleDescription

Rule # Rqmts Cases Notes

Statement 801(a) A "statement" is (1) an oral or written assertion or (2)nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by theperson as an assertion.

if from a machine,not hearsay

- Verbal Act- Effect onlistener- 613 Priorinconsistentstmt

Declarant 801(b) -person who makes stmtHearsay 801(c) -"Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the

declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offeredin evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

So, and out-of-court assertion brought it to prove thetruth of what is asserts

11


12/18

PriorInconsistentStmts byWitness

801(d)(1)(A)

-must besubject to cross now-prior stmt must have been given UNDER OATH attrial/hearing/deposition

Prob 7.19: ifactually forgot, notinconsistent; iflying, then will beallowed in

NOT HEARSAY

PriorConsistentStmts

801(d)(1)(B)

-must be subject to cross now-consistent w/ declarants testimony now-OFFERED TO REBUT charge of-recent fabrication/improper influence/motive

Tome v. U.S. NOT HEARSAY

Prior Stmtsfor ID

801(d)(1)(C)

-must be subject to cross now-must have perceived person

U.S. v. Owens -just b/c he cannot remember nowdoes not mean that 6th Am right violated. (prison guardbeat up)Subject to cross requires1) W Placed on stand

2) under oath3) respond to questions willingly

NOTES: Weichell- Composite sketchas identity.

NOT HEARSAY

Statementsagainst party

opponents

This is warfirst-hand knowledge not necessary

Partys OwnStmt

801(d)(2)(A)

-offered against party-partys own stmt-individual or representative capacity

NOT HEARSAY

AdoptiveStmts

801(d)(2)(B) -offered against party-party has manifested adoption/belief in truth

by silence2.) heard stmt3.) at liberty to respond4.) circumstances called for response5.) person didnt respondor by adoption

1.) heard and understoof stmt2.) acted in accordance with it

For Miranda andsilence see chartat end

NOT HEARSAY

12


13/18

Byauthorizedparty

801(d)(2)(C)

-offered against party-lawyers are included-person must be authorized on subject-Ct will determine if authorized party-stmt alone not enough

Mahlandt (PoosCase)

NOT HEARSAY

Agent orservant

801(d)(2)(D)

-must be during existence of employ-must concern matter in scope of employ-Ct will determine agency/scope--NO rqmt for personal knowledge-stmt alone not enough

Mahlandt (PoosCase)

NOT HEARSAY

Co-conspirators

801(d)(2)(E)

-Ct will determine existence of conspiracy (stmt alonenot enough)-must be during conspiracy-must be in FURTHERANCE OF conspiracy-stmt along not enough

Bourjaily conspiracypreconditions.

1.) conspiracyexisted during stmt2.) stmt was infurtherance of

conspiracy3.) Declarant and Dwere both inconspiracy

NOT HEARSAY

Hearsayexceptions

Eventhoughdeclarant isavailableas awitness

PresentSenseimpression

803(1) -first hand knowledge of facts-do not need to show effect on declarant-must describe/explain event/condition-Must occur (nearly) same time as event (matter ofminutes, not hours).

TIMING is KEY.

Excitedutterance

803(2) -first hand knowledge of facts asserted-must be startling event that CAUSED stress or

13


14/18

excitement of declarant-only has to relate to event/condition-can occur farther off in time just must be understress/excitement of event.

State ofMind: Mental,emotional,physical

803(3) - offered to show intent, plan, motive, design, mentalfeeling, pain, and bodily health- not including a statement of memory or belief toprove the fact remembered or believed-exception for wills

Hillmon (allowedto show intent for3rd party)

Shepard (onlylooking forward,not looking back)

Exception forwills. See Rule.

MedicalDiagnosis/Treatment

803(4) -for purpose of medical diagnosis/treatment-describing symptoms-general character of cause or source-patient should believe that they offer it to helpphysician treat/diagnose

Iron Shell (V tldDr. D raped her;allowed in b/chelped narrowdown exam)

10th Cir: takeswide-ranging viewbecause persontakes care of you

Watch forpolicy Q.- Stmt to familymembersallowed in- Drs stmt to

patient to gethim to dosomethingallowed in

RecordedRecollection

803(5)

803(5)con . . .

- Must be memorandum or record- concerning a matter about which a witness once hadknowledge but now has insufficient recollection toenable the witness to testify fully and accurately-shown to have been made or adopted by the witnesswhen the matter was fresh in the witness' memory and

to reflect that knowledge correctly.-If admitted, the memorandum or record may be readinto evidence but may not itself be received as anexhibit unless offered by an adverse party.

Johnson v. State(person mustsomehow vouch forthat)1. W made ofadopted record

2. based on first-hand knowledge3. when matterwas fresh in Wsmemory4. record correctlyreflected Wsmemory5 W at trial mustnot be able to test.

Cant enter itas exhibit, butmay read intorecord.

14


15/18

fully andaccurately aboutmatter recorded

Records ofregularlyconductedactivity

803(6) -A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, inany form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, ordiagnoses, made at or near the time by, or frominformation transmitted by, a person with knowledge, ifkept in the course of a regularly conductedbusiness activity, and- if it was the regular practice of that business activityto make record as shown by the testimony of thewitness-unless the source of information or the method orcircumstances of preparation indicate lack oftrustworthiness-custodian or qualified W has to testify to thisprocess (familiarity with and knowledge ofrecord-keeping process)

Vigneau (Westernunion and outsiderstmts)

Palmer v.Hoffman (RR)

Look for doublehearsay

Must be incourse ofregularlyconducted bizactivity

-see alsoABSENCE OFENTRY INRECORDS803(7)

PublicRecords/Reports

803(8) -Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, inany form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth(A) the activities of the office or agency, or(B) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by lawas to which matters there was a duty to report-excludes in criminal cases matters observed bypolice officers and other law enforcementpersonnel, or(C) in civil actions and proceedings and against theGovernment in criminal cases, factual findings resultingfrom an investigation made pursuant to authority

granted by law, unless the sources of information orother circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.

BeechAircract/advisorycomm. onnonexclusivefactors ifsomething isuntrustworthy1. Timeliness ofinvestigation2. investigatorsskill or experience

3. whether hearingwas held4. bias if preparedwith view towardlitigation (likePalmer v. Hoffman)

-see alsoABSENCE OFPUBLICRECORD,803(10)

Hayes (10thcir.)(IRS reportnot in 803(8),but canbackdoor thru

803(6), hereperson is test(not in Oates,which doesntallow it)So allowedwhere nonadversarialreports and cancross person

15


16/18

Misc 803(11)-(23)

-see Rulebook

UnavailableDeclarant

804(a)(1) Exempted by court ruling/privilege 5th Am

U.S. v.Williamson

804(a)(2) REFUSES TO TESTIFY804(a)(3) TESTIFIES TO LACK OF MEMORY804(a)(4) DEATH, PHYSICAL/MENTAL INFIRMITY804(a)(5) ABSENT, AND UNABLE TO GET TO ATTEND BY PROCESS

OR OTHER REASONABLE MEANSUNVAIL:FormerTestimony

804(b)(1) -MUST HAVE BEEN AT ANOTHER PROCEEDING(DEPO/TESTIMONY)-OPPORTUNITY OR SIMILAR MOTIVE-CHANCE TO DEVELOP TESTIMONLY ON EXAMINATION

-PREDECESSOR-IN-INTEREST (CIVIL ONLY)

U.S. v. DiNapoli

Lloyd v.American Export

UNAVAIL:DyingDeclaration

804(b)(2) -Homicide or civil action only-declarant need not have died-declarant must believe that death is imminent(settled hopeless expectation of death Shepard)-must have PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE-must concern cause/circumstance of impending death

Shepard -Cardozo.

UNAVAIL:Stmtsagainst

Interest

804(b)(3)

-against declarants pecuniary/proprietary interest ATTIME OF STMT- subject declarant to criminal/civil liability

-reasonable person would not have made it-NOTE: exposing declarant to CRIMINAL liabilityoffered to EXCULPATE THE ACCUSED is NOTadmissible UNLESS there is corroboration to itstrustworthiness.

U.S. v.Williamson(mixing lies with

truth is effectiveway to lie; so onlylet in exculpatorystmts)

UNAVAIL:Personal/Family History

804(b)(4) See Rule

UNAVAIL:Forfeiture by

804(b)(6) 1) engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing2) that intended to make person unavailable

U.S. v. Gray Judge must findthe three by

16


17/18

wrongdoing 3) AND DID procure unavail.-does not have to be on this exact matter, butrelated (Gray).

preponderanceof the evidence

HearsayWithinHearsay

805 -Hearsay included within hearsay is not excluded underthe hearsay rule if- each part of the combined statements conforms withan exception to the hearsay rule provided in theserules.

Attack/Support Credibilityof declarant

806 When a hearsay statement, or a statement definedin Rule 801(d)(2)(C), (D), or (E), has been admitted inevidence, the credibility of the declarant may beattacked, and if attacked may be supported, by anyevidence which would be admissible for those purposesif declarant had testified as a witness. Evidence of astatement or conduct by the declarant at any time,inconsistent with the declarant's hearsay statement, isnot subject to any requirement that the declarant mayhave been afforded an opportunity to deny or explain. Ifthe party against whom a hearsay statement has beenadmitted calls the declarant as a witness, the party isentitled to examine the declarant on the statement as ifunder cross-examination.

ResidualException

807 -if not under 803/804 but having equivalentcircumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is notexcluded by the hearsay rule, if the court determines

that:A) stmt offered as evidence of material factB) stmt is more probative on point than any otherevidence that proponent could get by reasonableeffortsC) general purpose of these rules and the interests ofjustice will be best served by admission of stmt intoevidence

However, must give advance notice to adverse party

Dallas County(newspaper articleadmittedunlikely

someone aliveback then wouldremember)

Laster(guy withstuff for meth,company businessrecords no onecould test toknowledge with

Considerationsfor inclusionunder the rule:

1) Character ofstmt2) whether stmtis written or oral3) relationship ofdeclarant toparty4) probablemotivation ofdeclarant in

17
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule801d2Chttp://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule801d2C


18/18

with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it them; near miss) making stmt5) circumstancesunder whichstmt was made

Mirandaand Silence

Adoptionunder

801(d)(2)(B)

D not in custory: circuits splitD in custody, but before Miranda: circuits splitD in custody but post-Miranda: NO

Maysilence beused toimpeachunder 613

D not in custody: YesD in custody, but pre-Miranda: Yes (Fletcher v. Weir)D in custody and post Miranda: NO (Doyle)

Fletcher: D was incustody, but didntsay, as he later didat trial, it was self-D)

Im taking this exam as its asking about relevant evidence under FRE 401 and 402. All evidence is subject to a 403test. This doesnt include 609. When necessary, I shall explain how the balancing tests in 609 should work.

18

rules chart

Documents