5 Written Questions
5 Matching Questions
- Rule 612
- Rule 802
- Rule 610
- Rule 601
- Rule 803
- a Writing Used to Refresh Memory
If a written statement is used to refresh the memory of a witness either while testifying or before testifying, the
Court shall determine that the adverse party is entitled to have the writing produced for inspection. The adverse
party may cross examine the witness on the material and introduce into evidence those portions which relate to the testimony of the witness.
- b Hearsay Rule: Hearsay is not admissible, except as provided by these rules.
- c General rule of competency: Every person is competent to be a witness.
- d Rule 610. Religious Beliefs or Opinions
Evidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature the witness' credibility is impaired or enhanced.
- e Hearsay Exceptions, Availability of Declarant Immaterial
The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness:
1. Present sense impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter.
2. Excited utterance. A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.
3. Then existing mental, emotional, or physical conditions. A statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind,emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of declarant's will.
4. Statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. Statements made for the purpose of medical
diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the
inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.
5. Recorded Recollection. A memorandum or record concerning a matter about which a witness once had knowledge but now has insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully and accurately, shown to have been made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness' memory and to reflect that knowledge correctly. If admitted, the memorandum or record may be read into evidence but may not itself be received as an exhibit unless offered by an adverse party.
6. Records of regularly conducted activity. A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that
business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness. The term "business" as used in this paragraph includes business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit.
18. Learned treatises. To the extent called to the attention of an expert witness upon cross examination or relied upon by the expert witness in direct examination, statements contained in published treatises, periodicals, or pamphlets on a subject of history, medicine, or other science or art, established as a reliable authority by the testimony or admission of the witness or by other expert testimony or by judicial notice. If admitted, the statements may be read into evidence but may not be received as exhibits.
21. Reputation as to character. Reputation of a person's character among associates or in the community.
22. Judgment of previous conviction. Evidence of a final judgment, entered after a trial or upon a plea of guilty (but not upon a plea of nolo contendre), adjudging a person guilty of a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year, to prove any fact essential to sustain the judgment, but not including, when offered by the Government in a criminal prosecution for purposes other than impeachment, judgments against persons other than the accused.
5 Multiple Choice Questions
- Prior Statements of Witness
a. Examining witness concerning prior statement: In examining a witness concerning a prior statement made by the witness, whether written or not, the statement need not be shown nor its contents disclosed to the witness at that time, but on request the same shall be shown or disclosed to opposing counsel.
b. Extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statement of witness: Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless the witness is afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the same and the opposite party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate the witness thereon, or the interests of justice otherwise require. This provision does not apply to admissions of a party-opponent as defined in Rule 801(d)(2).
- a. Opinion and reputation evidence of character. The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by
evidence in the form of opinion or reputation, but subject to these limitations: (1) the evidence may refer only to
character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, and (2) evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by opinion or reputation evidence, or otherwise.
b. Specific instances of conduct. Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or
supporting the witness' character for truthfulness, other than conviction of crime as provided in Rule 609, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the Court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness (1) concerning the witness' character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or (2) concerning the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of another witness as
to which character the witness being cross-examined has testified.
The giving of testimony, whether by an accused or by any other witness, does not operate as a waiver of the accused's or the witness' privelege against self-incrimation with respect to matters related only to character for truthfullness.
- Liability Insurance (Civil Case Only): Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness.
- Lack of personal knowledge: A witness may may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness' own testimony. This rule is subject to the provisions of Rule 703, related to opinion testimony by expert witnesses.
- Compromise and offers to compromise:
A: Prohibited uses. Evidence of the following is not admissible on behalf of any party when offered to prove liability for, invalidity of, or amount of a claim that was disputed as to validity or amount, or to impeach through a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction:
1. furnishing or offering or promising to furnish- or accepting or offering or promising to accept a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim; and
2. conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations regarding the claim, except when offered in a criminal case and the negotiations related to a claim by a public office or agency in the exercise of a regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority.
B: permitted uses: This rule does not require exclusion if the evidence is offered for purposes not prohibited by subdivision a. examples of permissible purposes include proving a witness' bias or prejudice; negating a contention of undue delay; and proving an effort to obstruct a criminal proceeding or prosecution.
5 True/False Questions
Rule 403 → Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on grounds of prejudice, Confusion, or waste of time: Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
Rule 405 → Hearsay included within hearsay is not excluded under the hearsay rule if each part of the combined statement conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule provided in these rules.
Rule 704 → Opinion of Ultimate Issue
a. Except as provided in subdivision (b), testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible
is not objectionable because it embraces an issue to be decided by the trier of fact.
b. No expert witness testifying with respect to the mental state or condition of a defendant in a criminal case may state an opinion or inference as to whether the defendant did or did not have the mental state or condition constituting an element of the crime charged or of a defense thereto. Such ultimate issues are matters for the trier of fact alone.
Rule 703 → Disclosure of Facts or Data Underlying Expert Opinion
The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give reasons therefore without first testifying to the underlying facts or data, unless the Court requires otherwise. The expert may in any event be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross-examination.
Rule 406 → Habit; Routine Practice: Evidence of the habit of a person or the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion, was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.