Shopping Bag

0 item(s) in cart/ total: $0    view cart

Evidence

Products (Total Items: 166 )
In Re Petition of Sheila Roberts Ford
Rule 27, authorize pre-complaint discovery, file a verified complaint.
Cummings v. General Motors Corp.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a), automatically disclose all documents and tangible evidence on which it intends to rely at trial, dislosure, motion to compel discovery, protective order.
Polycast Technology Corp. v. Uniroyal, Inc.
parties may depose non-party witnesses, deposition, testimony, protective order.
Wilson v. Olathe Bank
Movants, protective order, federal rule of civil procedure 30(b)(2), record a deposition by nonstenographic means and is given the choice of the method of recording, absent annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, and undue burden or expense.
In Re Auction Houses Antitrust Litigation
A contract may form the basis of a discovery obligation under the federal rules of civil procedure, interrogatory.
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC
Expense and burden of certain discovery requests may be shifted to the requesting party, discoverable matter includes both paper and electronic documents.
Battle v. Memorial Hospital at Gulfport
Deposition testimony of an unavailable witness may be introduced at trial, continuance, unavailability.
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
When a vehicle is stopped at a traffic stop, the passenger as well as the driver is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment for search and seizure.
res ipsa loquitur
States v. Lourdes Hospital; doctrine of res ipsa loquitor; factfinder; draw an inference of negligence; kind that ordinarily does not occur absent negligence.
Tanner v. United States
Juror testimony may not be used to impeach verdict unless testimony relates to outside influence that affected jury; impeachment of verdict; voir dire.
United States v. James
Evidence that directly corroborates witness credibility is admissible, even if evidence relates to facts not known to witness; harmless error; indian country; material evidence; relevant evidence.
Cox v. State
Evidence that is relevant only if another fact is proven will be admitted if court concludes that reasonable jury could make the required finding of fact with the evidence before it.
State v. Bocharski
Relevant evidence should not be admitted if the only effect of evidence would be to inflame jury; felony murder rule.
United States v. James
Evidence that is unfairly prejudicial to either party should be excluded; aiding and abetting; manslaughter.
United States v. Myers
Evidence of flight is admissible to show consciousness of guilt only if sufficient to support inferences from defendant behavior to the defendant flight, to consciousness of guilt of crime charged, to actual guilt. circumstantial evidence.
People v. Collins
Statistical evidence will not be admitted unless it has a foundation in evidence and statistical theory, and it must not distract the jury from its duty to weigh the evidence on the issue of guilt. Foundational evidence.
United States v. Jackson
Exclusion of evidence may be conditioned on stipulation that acknowledges the truth of part of excluded evidence; probative value.
Old Chief v. United States
Court abuses its discretion if it rejects offer to stipulate to prior conviction when prior conviction is element of offense charged.
Tuer v. McDonald
Evidence of remedial measures taken after allegedly negligent act is not admissible to prove negligence; impeachment motion in limine.
Bankcard America, Inc. v. Universal Bancard Systems, Inc.
Evidence regarding settlement negotiations is admissible, but only for purposes other than showing liability.
Williams v. McCoy
Evidence of liability insurance is inadmissible only when evidence is offered to show that the insured acted negligently or wrongfully; direct contempt.
United States v. Biaggi
Rejected offer of immunity in exchange for testimony is admissible to show innocent state of mind.
People v. Zackowitz
Evidence of particular character trait is inadmissible to show that person acted in conformity with that trait. Character evidence.
United States v. Trenkler
Modus operandi. Evidence of other criminal acts is admissible to show identity of person who committed acts if there is high degree of similarity between the other act and charged crime. Expert witness.
United States v. Stevens
Evidence that defendant did not commit similar crimes may be used to show that defendant did not commit the crime charged. Harmless error.
Rex v. Smith
Evidence of similar acts is admissible to show plan or the lack of accident.
Huddleston v. United States
Evidence of similar acts may be admitted if there is sufficient evidence to support finding by jury that defendant committed similar acts. Indirect evidence.
Lannan v. State
Priors; prior convictions; prior crimes; evidence of prior sexual conduct is inadmissible to prove that defendant had tendency to commit sexual assault.
State v. Kirsch
Evidence of other acts or crimes is not admissible to show predilection for committing certain crime. Intent; motive.
United States v. Guardia
Evidence of other sexual conduct will be admitted only if probative value of evidence outweighs danger of undue prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading jury, undue delay, waste of time, needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
United States v. Mound
Rule 413 of Federal Rules of Evidence does not violate due process or Equal Protection Clause. equal protection; suspect class; suspect classification.
Michelson v. United States
Character evidence is evidence of witness knowledge of defendant reputation, not evidence regarding specific acts. Reputation evidence.
Perrin v. Anderson
Defendant in civil action may offer evidence of victim's character if central issue in civil action is criminal in nature, but he may not introduce evidence regarding specific acts. Circumstantial evidence.
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Towers Financial Corp.
The Federal Rules of Evidence prohibit defendant in civil action from introducing evidence of his or her good character. Ponzi scheme.
Halloran v. Virginia Chemicals Inc.
Evidence of a person's habit is admissible to show that he or she acted according to habit on a particular occasion; habit evidence.
United States v. Brewer
Before evidence of prior felony convictions may be admitted for impeachment purposes, the court must determine whether probative value of admitting convictions outweighs prejudicial effect to defendant. Impeach; impeachment; suppress evidence.
United States v. Brackeen
For purposes of rule allowing admissionof evidence of witness conviction of crime involving dishonesty or false statements, bank robbery is not per se crime of dishonesty. Crimen falsi.
Luce v. United States
Defendant who does not testify may not seek appellate review of ruling that allows admission of impeachment evidence.
Ohler v. United States
Party who introduces evidence waives right to seek appellate review of admissibility of that evidence. Direct examination.
People v. Abbot
Evidence that prosecutrix in rape action had prior sexual activities with men is relevant to show consent. Rape shield law.
State v. Sibley
Evidence of a man's bad character and poor reputation for chastity is inadmissible in rape prosecution to impeach character of witness.
State v. Smith
Evidence that victim has made prior false allegations of sexual assault is not barred by rape shield law. Recant.
Olden v. Kentucky
Rape shield laws are subject to defendant's Sixth Amendment right to cross examine the accuser for bias; confrontation clause; motion in limine.
Boggs v. Collins
Sixth Amendment does not require that defendant be allowed to examine witness on prior conduct as means to make general attack on witness credibility.
Stephens v. Miller
Defendant's right to testify in his or her own defense is not absolute and may be limited to protect other legitimate interests. Res gestae.
United States v. Knox
Evidence of prior sexual behavior is not admissible to show mistake regarding consent if there is no real possibility that there was such a mistake. Relevant.
Rex v. Raleigh
Hearsay statements are admissible in prosecution for treason, and declarant may not testify.
Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival and Research Center, Inc.
Statements made by agent or employee that concern matter within the scope of agency or employment and that are made during the existence of relationship are admissible, even if those statements are not made to third parties.
Bourjaily v. United States
Statements made by co conspirators during course of conspiracy are admissible if existence of conspiracy is proven by preponderance of evidence, which may include statements themselves.
United States v. Barrett
Prior inconsistent statements of witness are admissible to impeach the credibility of that witness.
United States v. Ince
Hearsay; hearsay exception; prior inconsistent statements; inadmissible confession; past recollection recorded.
Fletcher v. Weir
Defendant may be cross examined about his or her post arrest silence if no Miranda warnings were given. Habeas corpus; miranda rule.
Tome v. United States
Prior consistent statements are admissible to rebut charge of fabrication only if consistent statements were made before motive to fabricate arose.
Commonwealth v. Weichell
The record of witness out of court description of person is admissible. Identikit.
United States v. Owens
Witness is subject to cross examination concerning statement if he or she is placed on witness stand, under oath, and responds willingly to questions. Confrontation clause.
United States v. DiNapoli
Test for whether party has same motive in developing evidence is not only whether questioner was on same side of same issue in both proceedings, but also whether questioner had substantially similar interest. RICO.
Lloyd v. American Export Lines, Inc.
Testimony at prior trial or hearing will be admissible if party with like motive to cross examine the witness as party in the present proceeding would have been given adequate opportunity to cross examine the witness. Jones Act.
Williamson v. United States
Parts of out of court statement that do not inculpate the declarant are not admissible as statements against interest. Exculpatory evidence; inculpatory evidence; use immunity.
Shepard v. United States
In order to be admissible as dying declaration, statement must have been made while declarant had no hope of recovery and knew that death was imminent.
United States v. Houlihan
Defendant waives right to object on Confrontation Clause grounds to admission of unavailable witness out of court statements if defendant caused potential witness unavailability by wrongful act done with intention of preventing witness testifying.
Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon
Out of court statements that express declarants present intention are admissible to prove what that intention was. Inference.
United States v. Iron Shell
Admission of out of court statement under exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment depends on if declarant's motive in making statement was consistent with purpose of exception and if reasonable for physician to rely.
Johnson v. State
In order for recording of past recollection to be admissible, the witness whose recollection is refreshed must testify that recording is accurate. Capital offense.
Palmer v. Hoffman
Report of accident is not made in regular course of business, and so is not admissible under business records exception to hearsay rule.
United States v. Vigneau
Business records exception does not include statements in record that were made by someone not part of business if those statements are offered for their truth. Double hearsay; laundering redaction.
Beech Aircraft Corporation v. Rainey
Investigatory reports are not inadmissible solely because they set out conclusion or opinion.
Dallas County v. Commercial Union Assurance Company
Ancient document. Hearsay evidence may be admissible if there is no other way of proving facts in hearsay statement and if there are circumstances that show evidence is trustworthy enough without need for cross examination.
United States v. Laster
Residuary hearsay exception allows admission of hearsay if there is no indication that evidence is not reliable, if hearsay is more probative on point for which it is offered than any other evidence, and if its admission serves best interests of justice.
Mattox v. United States
Defendant rights under confrontation clause are satisfied if defendant has once had opportunity to see a witness face to face and subject that witness to cross examination. Confrontation clause.
Idaho v. Wright
Trustworthiness of an out of court statement must be determined based on totality of circumstances that surrounded making of statement, without considering facts that may corroborate statement. Bootstrap.
White v. Illinois
Excited utterance. Confrontation Clause does not require a showing of necessity before statements may be admitted under a hearsay exception.
Lilly v. Virginia
A hearsay exception is regarded as firmly rooted if, in light of longstanding legislative and judicial experience, the admission of virtually any evidence under that exception comports with substance of Confrontation Clause.
Bruton v. United States
Admission of joint defendants' confession violates other defendants rights under Confrontation Clause, even if limiting instruction is given to jury. Cautionary instruction.
Cruz v. New York
Confessions of nontestifying co-defendants are inadmissible, even if they interlock with defendants own confession.
Gray v. Maryland
Redacted confession of co-defendant that replaces defendant's name with an obvious indication of deletion is inadmissible. Redaction.
Chambers v. Mississippi
State evidentiary rules may not be applied in such a manner as to deny a defendant right to present witnesses in his own defense.
United States v. Figueroa-Lopez
Witness may not give opinion testimony about matters outside the realm of common knowledge unless that witness is qualified as an expert. Expert witness.
United States v. Johnson
Witness may qualify as expert if witness expertise is derived entirely from experience in a particular area. Expert witness qualifications.
Jinro America Inc. v. Secure Investments, Inc.
Expert testimony must be confined to area of witness expertise. Bifurcated trial.
Hygh v. Jacobs
Expert testimony is not allowed on legal conclusions that are to be reached by jury.
State v. Batangan
Expert may not offer opinion that witness is telling truth. Credibility.
United States v. Hines
Expert testimony may be introduced on matters ordinarily within understanding of jury if the inferences jury may draw on subject could be erroneous.
In Re Melton
Expert opinions may be based on hearsay that meets minimum standards of reliability. Civil commitment.
Frye v. United States
Expert opinion that is based on scientific principle will be admitted only if scientific principle is sufficiently established so that it has gained general acceptance in its particular field. Daubert; frye test; polygraph.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
General acceptance is not precondition to admissibility of scientific evidence as long as expert testimony rests on reliable foundation and is relevant to issues in the case.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Expert testimony must reflect scientific knowledge must be relevant to proposing party's case. Daubert test.
United States v. Crumby
Polygraph evidence will be admitted for limited purpose of impeaching or corroborating credibility of defendant who testifies.
United States v. Scheffer
Compulsory Process Clause does not guarantee right to present polygraph evidence.
Kumho Tire Company v. Carmichael
All expert testimony must be evaluated to determine if it has connection to relevant inquiry and reliable basis in knowledge and experience of relevant discipline.
State v. Kinney
Trial courts may admit expert testimony if reliability of evidence equals that of other technical evidence held to be admissible and evaluation of other courts allowing admission of evidence is complete and persuasive. Judicial notice; plain error.
United States v. Stelmokas
Authentication. Requirement that document be authenticated before it may be admitted into evidence is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support finding that document is what its proponent claims it to be. Chain of custody.
People v. Lynes
Authentication. Evidence may be authenticated by circumstances that permit drawing of inferences that evidence is what proponent claims. Post hoc.
Simms v. Dixon
Foundation; authentication. Photograph is authenticated for evidentiary purposes if witness with knowledge of facts is able to testify that photograph is correct portrayal of those facts. Foundation.
Wagner v. State
Silent witness theory. Pictorial evidence is admissible if there is an adequate foundation attesting to accuracy of process that produced image.
Seiler v. Lucasfilm
Best evidence rule. When contents of written document or equivalent are at issue, contents must be proved by original document unless original is unavailable for some reason that is not fault of proponent. Infringement.
Jaffee v. Redmond
Evidentiary privileges are justified by an imperative need for confidence and trust in relationship, if that privilege also will serve public ends. Psychotherapist patient privelege.
Morales v. Portuondo
Assertion of evidentiary privilege may not bar admission of evidence if exclusion of otherwise privileged evidence would be fundamentally unfair. Habeas corpus.
People v. Gionis
The attorney client privilege applies only to statements made to attorney in his or her professional capacity, for purpose of seeking legal advice. Show cause order.
Blackmon v. State
Attorney client privilege. In order for statement to attorney to be confidential, client must reasonably intend that communication be confidential.
In Re Osterhoudt
Attorney client privilege. Identity of attorney's client and nature of any fee agreement are not protected by attorney client privilege, unless disclosure of information would implicate client in criminal activity for which legal advice was sought.
Swidler and Berlin v. United States
Attorney client privilege survives death of client. Independent counsel.
United States v. Zolin
Court should undertake in camera review of evidence to determine if crime fraud exception will bar claim of attorney client privilege only if there is factual showing adequate to support good faith belief that review may reveal evidence of fraud.
Commonwealth v. Stockhammer
When defendant requests access to privileged records, counsel for defendant should be allowed to examine records in order to determine what is necessary for defense.
In Re Lindsey
Attorney client privilege does not prevent government lawyers from testifying about possible commission of crimes by other government officials.
Fisher v. United States
Client documents in possession of lawyer are protected by attorney client privilege only if Fifth Amendment privilege would have protected while in client's possession and documents given to lawyer for purpose of obtaining legal advice.
United States v. Doe
If act of producing documents would be incriminating, production of those documents cannot be compelled without statutory grant of use immunity.
United States v. Hubbell
Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination protects witness from being compelled to answer questions about existence of sources of potentially incriminating evidence and from subpoena seeking discovery. Transactional immunity.
Tilton v. Beecher
The marital privilege protects the marriage relationship.
Trammel v. United States
Witness may be neither compelled to testify nor barred from testifying against his or her spouse. Privilege for marital communications; marital privilege.
United States v. Rakes
privilege for marital communications permits individual to refuse to testify, and to prevent spouse or former spouse from testifying, regarding any confidential communication made by individual to spouse during the of marriage. Extortion misprison.
In Re Grand Jury Proceedings
There is no testimonial privilege for parent child communications. Motion to quash.
Shepard v. United States
Declaration of person's state of mind is inadmissible to prove the actions of someone other than the declarant.
Demonstrative Evidence
Commonwealth v. Serge; computer-generated animation is admissible if fair and accurate representation of evidence, relevant under the rules of evidence, and its probative value is not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice; undue prejudice.
Prior Bad Acts Are Relevant Evidence
United States v. DeGeorge; inextricably intertwined with a charged offense; may be admitted if constitutes a part of the transaction that serves as basis for criminal charge, or for coherent and comprehensive story regarding commission of crime.
Character Evidence
United States v. Whitmore; Rule 608(a); party may introduce reputation or opinion evidence of a witness's character for truthfulness only if character witness is acquainted with witness, his community, and circles in which he has moved.
Unavailable Witness Hearsay
United States v. Gray; killing witnesses; a defendant who wrongfully and intentionally renders a declarant unavailable as a witness in any proceeding forfeits the right to exclude, on hearsay grounds, the declarant's statements.
Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause
Crawford v. Washington; for out-of-court statement to be admitted into evidence, the witness must be unavailable and the defendant must have had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.
Out of Court Statements to Police Officer
Davis v. Washington Hammon v. Indiana; admissibility depends on whether testimonial; statements to police are non-testimonial if primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable the police to meet an ongoing emergency.
Specialized Knowledge is Basis for Expert Testimony
United States v. Ganier; computer software experience provides expert, not lay, testimony.
Telephone Call As Admissable Evidence
State v. Small; a voice over the telephone may be identified as being that of a particular person if there is evidence that shows the person identified is the only one who could have uttered the speech under the circumstances.
Best Evidence Rule for Chat Logs
United States v. Jackson; to prove the contents of a writing or recording, must introduce either the original or an accurate duplicate of the original.
Journalists Must Reveal Sources To Grand Juries
In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller; no First Amendment privilege that protects journalists from providing evidence to a grand jury.
Exceptions to Attorney Client Privilege
Howell v. Joffe; conversation protected if originated in confidence that it would not be disclosed, was made to an attorney in his or her legal capacity to secure legal advice or services, and was kept confidential.
Attorney-Client Privilege Inadvertent Waiver
Koch Foods of Alabama, LLC v. General Electric Capital Corp.; totality of the circumstances balancing test determines whether client confidentiality waived.
Attorney Client Privilege Applies to Government Attorneys
In Re: Grand Jury Investigation Rowland; confidentiality applies to public attorneys same as with private lawyers.
Silence May or May Not Be Admissable Testimony
Wilson v. Clancy; Under Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c), in order to create a triable issue of fact, affidavits must contain evidence that would be admissible at trial; affidavit; inference; joint tenancy; right of survivorship; summary judgment.
Dying Declaration Exception to Hearsay Rule
State v. Jensen; To be a dying declaration, statement must have been made by the declarant while believing death was imminent, and must concern the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be the declarant's impending death.
Hearsay Within Hearsay Can Be Admissable
Sana v. Hawaiian Cruises, Ltd; For documents to be admissible, each layer of hearsay within them must satisfy an exception to the hearsay rule; business-records exception; Jones Act; maintenance and cure.
Near Miss Doctrine for Hearsay Evidence
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co., Ltd; The residual hearsay exceptions should be used very rarely, and only in exceptional and unanticipated circumstances that are not specifically covered by particular exceptions.
Defendant May Introduce Evidence of Third Party's Guilt
Holmes v. South Carolina; Rules of evidence in criminal trials may not be arbitrary, must be focused on the central issues in the case, and must be applied to afford the defendant a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.
Forfeiture By Wrongdoing
Giles v. California; Forfeiture by wrongdoing applies only when defendant engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure unavailability of declarant as witness; domestic volence.
Affidavits That Support Search Warrants
U.S. v. Tzannos; There is a presumption of validity with respect to affidavits supporting search warrants; ex parte; franks hearing; in camera.
Admitting Photocopies Usually Allowed
United States v. Hampton; Under Federal Rule of Evidence 1003, a duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless there is a genuine question as to the authenticity of the original.
Hypnotism Not Allowed To Refresh Memory
State v. Moore; The hypnotically refreshed testimony of a witness in a criminal trial is generally inadmissible.
Judicial Notice Of Geographic Facts
De La Cruz v. City of Los Angeles; An appellate court has the authority to take judicial notice of the distances between places, and a map is a proper subject of judicial notice; respondeat superior.
Judicial Notice of Fact
Fielding v. State; When a court takes judicial notice of a fact in a criminal case, the court must instruct the jury that it may, but is not required to, accept as conclusive any fact so judicially noticed; directed verdict; harmless error; jury instruction.
Common Knowledge May Be Considered By Fact Finders
U.S. v. Amado-Nunez; The whole range of human experience, from the rough meaning of common terms to human psychology, and which may properly enter into the fact-finder's decision-making process without the need for direct evidence.
Rebuttable Presumption
In re Nicholas H; The presumption that a man holding out a child as his own is the parent of that child is rebuttable, by clear and convincing evidence that is not the biological parent; presumption of paternity; rebuttable presumption.
DNA Evidence
Brown v. Farwell; A federal court considering a habeas corpus petition may exclude evidence admitted in the state court if the evidence rendered the trial so fundamentally unfair as to violate federal due process; reasonable doubt.
Excited Utterance Exception to Hearsay
United States v. Arnold; May admit an out-of-court statement for truth of the matter asserted if the statement relates to a startling event or condition and was made while declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.
Confrontation Clause
People v. Moreno; defendant forfeits his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation if he wrongfully keeps a witness from testifying at trial, but it must be proven defendant's actions were intended to make witness unavailable; confrontation clause.
Client Identities Are Not Attorney Client Privilege
In Re Osterhoudt; Identity of attorney's client and nature of fee agreement are not protected by attorney-client privilege, unless disclosure of the information would implicate the client in the criminal activity for which legal advice was sought.
Crime Fraud Exception
United States v. Zolin; The court should undertake an in camera review of evidence to determine if the crime-fraud exception will bar a claim of attorney-client privilege.
Marital Privilege
United States v. Montgomery; the marital communications privilege applies to all private communications between spouses in a valid marriage unless evidence shows they were not intended to be confidential.
Authentication and Foundation
Turnage v. State; A duplicate document or recording is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a genuine question is raised about the authenticity of the duplicate or it would be unfair to admit.
An Affiant Is a Witness
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts; an affidavit is a witness for Sixth Amendment, so can be confronted at trial unless (1) unavailable to testify and (2) adverse party had a prior opportunity to cross examine the maker.
Dying Declaration During Police Interrogation
Michigan v. Bryant; Out-of-court statements made to police by an unavailable witness are admissible when the primary purpose of the police interrogation that elicited the statements was to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency.
Admissability of Taped Conversations
United States v. Oslund; taped conversations are admissible if the surrounding circumstances as a whole demonstrate reliability.
Crime Lab Testimony
Bullcoming v. New Mexico; Confrontation Clause; surrogate testimony; right to confront the lab analyst who certified a forensic laboratory report; right to cross-examination; DUI; DWI; blood alcohol level.
Expert on Eyewitness Testimony
State v. Guilbert; Testimony by a qualified expert on the fallibility of eyewitness identification is admissible when the testimony would aid the jury in evaluating the state's identification evidence.
Unavailable Witness
United States v. Duenas; similar motive to cross-examine required; former testimony inadmissible; deceased declarant; hearsay rule.
Lie Detector Test
United States v. Semrau; admissibility of lie detector test; expert testimony; reliability of scientific evidence; Daubert hearing.
Late Filing
Williams v. District of Columbia; motion filed too late; timely filing required; missed deadline.
Admissability of Suicide Note
Garza v. Delta Tau Delta Fraternity National; dying declaration; hearsay rule; statement made by the declarant while believing her death was imminent.
Authentication of Evidence
Griffin v. State; authentication of evidence; authenticate printout of page from social network website.
Clergy Privilege
In re Grand Jury Investigation; confessional; confessor; clergy communicant privilege; confidential relationship; priest; minister; clergyman.
Emergency Statements
People v. Sergio; Tarasoff exception; statement to the EMT ambulance drivers were not doctor patient privilege; physician patient privilege.
Innocence Project
Peterson v. Bernardi; DNA evidence; testing evidence to prove innocence of convicted prisoner.
Dying Declaration
R. v. Perry; dying declaration hearsay exception requires expectation that death is imminent.
Inadmissable Dying Declaration
State v. Williams; Expression of opinion is inadmissable hearsay even if declarant thought death was imminent; hearsay rule.
Best Evidence Rule Computer Records
United States v. Diaz-Lopez; best evidence rule does not apply to testimony that records have been examined and found not to contain any reference to a designated matter.
Improper Testimony
United States v. Moore; admission of improper testimony does not always result in reversal of conviction; inadmissible evidence; appeal; corroborating evidence.
Doctor Patient Privilege
United States v. Tome; physician patient privilege; statement to physician; hearsay rule; information required for diagnosis or treatment; Fed. R. Evid. 803(4).
Lab Report Admissable Evidence
Williams v. Illinois; Confrontation Clause; admission of DNA evidence; laboratory report; forensics report; DNA match; sexual assualt medical evidence.
Campbell v. Delbridge
Emotional distress; issues in medical malpractice case that are only peripheral to medical decisions do not require expert testimony.
Johnson v. Hillcrest Health Center, Inc.
Expert testimony is not necessary in medical malpractice case to show standard of care or deviations from that, if common knowledge of laypersons would enable jury to determine applicable standard of care and whether breach caused injury.