Evidence

Rule 27, authorize pre-complaint discovery, file a verified complaint.

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.

Deposition testimony of an unavailable witness may be introduced at trial, continuance, unavailability.

Juror testimony may not be used to impeach verdict unless testimony relates to outside influence that affected jury; impeachment of verdict; voir dire.

Relevant evidence should not be admitted if the only effect of evidence would be to inflame jury; felony murder rule.

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.

Evidence of remedial measures taken after allegedly negligent act is not admissible to prove negligence; impeachment motion in limine.

Rejected offer of immunity in exchange for testimony is admissible to show innocent state of mind.

Evidence that defendant did not commit similar crimes may be used to show that defendant did not commit the crime charged. Harmless error.

Priors; prior convictions; prior crimes; evidence of prior sexual conduct is inadmissible to prove that defendant had tendency to commit sexual assault.

Rule 413 of Federal Rules of Evidence does not violate due process or Equal Protection Clause. equal protection; suspect class; suspect classification.

The Federal Rules of Evidence prohibit defendant in civil action from introducing evidence of his or her good character. Ponzi scheme.

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.

Evidence that prosecutrix in rape action had prior sexual activities with men is relevant to show consent. Rape shield law.

Rape shield laws are subject to defendant's Sixth Amendment right to cross examine the accuser for bias; confrontation clause; motion in limine.

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.

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.

Defendant may be cross examined about his or her post arrest silence if no Miranda warnings were given. Habeas corpus; miranda rule.

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.

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.

Out of court statements that express declarants present intention are admissible to prove what that intention was. Inference.

Report of accident is not made in regular course of business, and so is not admissible under business records exception to hearsay rule.

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.

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.

Admission of joint defendants' confession violates other defendants rights under Confrontation Clause, even if limiting instruction is given to jury. Cautionary instruction.

State evidentiary rules may not be applied in such a manner as to deny a defendant right to present witnesses in his own defense.

Expert testimony must be confined to area of witness expertise. Bifurcated trial.

Expert testimony may be introduced on matters ordinarily within understanding of jury if the inferences jury may draw on subject could be erroneous.

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.

Compulsory Process Clause does not guarantee right to present polygraph evidence.

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.

Silent witness theory. Pictorial evidence is admissible if there is an adequate foundation attesting to accuracy of process that produced image.

Assertion of evidentiary privilege may not bar admission of evidence if exclusion of otherwise privileged evidence would be fundamentally unfair. Habeas corpus.

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.

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.

If act of producing documents would be incriminating, production of those documents cannot be compelled without statutory grant of use immunity.

Witness may be neither compelled to testify nor barred from testifying against his or her spouse. Privilege for marital communications; marital privilege.

Declaration of person's state of mind is inadmissible to prove the actions of someone other than the declarant.

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.

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.

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.

Koch Foods of Alabama, LLC v. General Electric Capital Corp.; totality of the circumstances balancing test determines whether client confidentiality waived.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

United States v. Oslund; taped conversations are admissible if the surrounding circumstances as a whole demonstrate reliability.

United States v. Duenas; similar motive to cross-examine required; former testimony inadmissible; deceased declarant; hearsay rule.

Garza v. Delta Tau Delta Fraternity National; dying declaration; hearsay rule; statement made by the declarant while believing her death was imminent.

People v. Sergio; Tarasoff exception; statement to the EMT ambulance drivers were not doctor patient privilege; physician patient privilege.

State v. Williams; Expression of opinion is inadmissable hearsay even if declarant thought death was imminent; hearsay rule.

United States v. Tome; physician patient privilege; statement to physician; hearsay rule; information required for diagnosis or treatment; Fed. R. Evid. 803(4).

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.