Midlands Rules of Evidence and Case Law Flashcards

Comprehensive vocabulary flashcards covering the Midlands Rules of Evidence and associated case law precedents.

101(a)

Scope; Definitions | (a) Scope. These rules apply to proceedings in the courts of the State of Midlands. The specific courts and proceedings to which the rules apply, along with exceptions, are set out in Rule 1101. No bureaucratic organizations whose edicts govern conduct in Midlands are considered to exist unless specified within the case problem. | In plain English: The Midlands evidence rules apply in Midlands courts, subject to Rule 1101 and the case materials.

101(b)

Scope; Definitions | (b) Definitions. In these rules (1) “civil case” means a civil action or proceeding; (2) “criminal case” includes a criminal proceeding; (3) “public office” includes a public agency; (4) “record” includes a memorandum, report, or data compilation; (5) a “rule prescribed by the Midlands Supreme Court” means a rule adopted by the Midlands Supreme Court under statutory authority; and (6) a reference to any kind of written material or any other medium includes electronically stored information. | In plain English: Definitions: civil case; criminal case; public office; record; rules prescribed by Midlands Supreme Court; written material electronically stored.

102

Purpose | These rules should be construed so as to administer every proceeding fairly, eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay, and promote the development of evidence law, to the end of ascertaining the truth and securing a just determination. | In plain English: Purpose: fairness, avoid delay, promote evidence law.

103

Rulings on Evidence | (a) Preserving a Claim of Error. A party may claim error in a ruling to admit or exclude evidence only if the error affects a substantial right of the party and: (1) if the ruling admits evidence, a party, on the record: (A) timely objects or moves to strike; and (B) states the specific ground, unless it was apparent from the context; or (2) if the ruling excludes evidence, a party informs the court of its substance by an offer of proof, unless the substance was apparent from the context. (b) Not Needing to Renew an Objection or Offer of Proof. Once the court rules definitively on the record – either before or at trial – a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal. (c) Omitted. (d) Preventing the Jury from Hearing Inadmissible Evidence. To the extent practicable, the court must conduct a jury trial so that inadmissible evidence is not suggested to the jury by any means. (e) Taking Notice of Plain Error. A court may take notice of a plain error affecting a substantial right, even if the claim of error was not properly preserved. | In plain English: Rulings on evidence.

103(a)

Rulings on Evidence | (a) Preserving a Claim of Error. A party may claim error in a ruling to admit or exclude evidence only if the error affects a substantial right of the party and: (1) if the ruling admits evidence, a party, on the record: (A) timely objects or moves to strike; and (B) states the specific ground, unless it was apparent from the context; or (2) if the ruling excludes evidence, a party informs the court of its substance by an offer of proof, unless the substance was apparent from the context. | In plain English: Preserving a claim of error.

103(a)(1)

Rulings on Evidence | (1) if the ruling admits evidence, a party, on the record: (A) timely objects or moves to strike; and (B) states the specific ground, unless it was apparent from the context; or | In plain English: Object on time and identify the specific ground when evidence is admitted.

103(a)(2)

Rulings on Evidence | (2) if the ruling excludes evidence, a party informs the court of its substance by an offer of proof, unless the substance was apparent from the context. | In plain English: If evidence is excluded, tell the court what it would have shown.

103(b)

Rulings on Evidence | (b) Not Needing to Renew an Objection or Offer of Proof. Once the court rules definitively on the record – either before or at trial – a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal. | In plain English: No need to renew objection or proffer.

103(d)

Rulings on Evidence | (d) Preventing the Jury from Hearing Inadmissible Evidence. To the extent practicable, the court must conduct a jury trial so that inadmissible evidence is not suggested to the jury by any means. | In plain English: Jury doesn't hear inadmissible evidence.

103(e)

Rulings on Evidence | (e) Taking Notice of Plain Error. A court may take notice of a plain error affecting a substantial right, even if the claim of error was not properly preserved. | In plain English: Court may take notice of plain error.

104

Preliminary Questions | (a) In General. The court must decide any preliminary question about whether a witness is qualified, a privilege exists, or evidence is admissible. In so deciding, the court is not bound by evidence rules, except those on privilege. (b) Relevance That Depends on a Fact. When the relevance of evidence depends on whether a fact exists, proof must be introduced sufficient to support a finding that the fact does exist. The court may admit the proposed evidence on the condition that the proof be introduced later. (c) Omitted. (d) Omitted. (e) Evidence Relevant to Weight and Credibility. This rule does not limit a party’s right to introduce before the jury evidence that is relevant to the weight or credibility of other evidence. | In plain English: Preliminary questions.

104(a)

Preliminary Questions | (a) In General. The court must decide any preliminary question about whether a witness is qualified, a privilege exists, or evidence is admissible. In so deciding, the court is not bound by evidence rules, except those on privilege. | In plain English: Witness qualifications, privilege, admissibility must be determined by court.

104(b)

Preliminary Questions | (b) Relevance That Depends on a Fact. When the relevance of evidence depends on whether a fact exists, proof must be introduced sufficient to support a finding that the fact does exist. The court may admit the proposed evidence on the condition that the proof be introduced later. | In plain English: If relevance depends on a fact, offer enough proof for a jury to find that fact.

104(e)

Preliminary Questions | (e) Evidence Relevant to Weight and Credibility. This rule does not limit a party’s right to introduce before the jury evidence that is relevant to the weight or credibility of other evidence. | In plain English: Evidence relevant to weight and credibility.

106

Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded Statements | If a party introduces all or part of a statement, an adverse party may require the introduction of any other part – or any other statement – that in fairness ought to be considered. The adverse party may do so over a hearsay objection. | In plain English: Ask for necessary omitted words or statements to be considered fairly; this rule may overcome hearsay.

107(a)

Illustrative Aids | (a) Permitted Uses. The court may allow a party to present an illustrative aid to help the trier of fact understand the evidence or argument if the aid’s utility in assisting comprehension is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or wasting time. | In plain English: Illustrative aids are permitted subject to 403.

107(d)

Illustrative Aids | (d) Summaries of Voluminous Materials Admitted as Evidence. When a document is admitted as evidence to prove the content of voluminous admissible evidence, such summaries are governed by Rule 1006. | In plain English: Summaries of voluminous evidence is subject to 1006.

201

Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts | (a) Scope. This rule governs judicial notice of an adjudicative fact only, not a legislative fact. (b) Kinds of Facts That May Be Judicially Noticed. The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. (c) Taking Notice. The court: (1) omitted; (2) must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information. (d) Timing. The court may take judicial notice at any stage of the proceeding. (e) Opportunity to Be Heard. On timely request, a party is entitled to be heard on the propriety of taking judicial notice and the nature of the fact to be noticed. If the court takes judicial | In plain English: Judicidal notice.

201(a)

Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts | (a) Scope. This rule governs judicial notice of an adjudicative fact only, not a legislative fact. | In plain English: Scope: adjudicative facts.

201(b)

Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts | (b) Kinds of Facts That May Be Judicially Noticed. The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. | In plain English: Kinds of facts: (1) within jurisdiction AND (2) readily determined.

201(c)

Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts | (c) Taking Notice. The court: (1) omitted; (2) must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information. | In plain English: Taking notice when (2) party requests so with sufficient information.

201(d)

Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts | (d) Timing. The court may take judicial notice at any stage of the proceeding. | In plain English: Timing.

201(e)

Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts | (e) Opportunity to Be Heard. On timely request, a party is entitled to be heard on the propriety of taking judicial notice and the nature of the fact to be noticed. If the court takes judicial notice before notifying a party, the party, on request, is still entitled to be heard. | In plain English: Opportunity to be heard.

201(f)

Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts | (f) Instructing the Jury. In a civil case, the court must instruct the jury to accept the noticed fact as conclusive. In a criminal case, the court must instruct the jury that it may or may not accept the noticed fact as conclusive. | In plain English: Civil jurors must accept notice as conclusive criminal jurors may/may not.

301

Presumptions in Civil Actions Generally | In a civil case, unless a Midlands statute or these rules provide otherwise, the party against whom a presumption is directed has the burden of producing evidence to rebut the presumption. But this rule does not shift the burden of persuasion, which remains on the party who had it originally. | In plain English: Burden of presumptions in civil court if a presumption is against a certain party, they hold the burden to rebut it. this does not sway burden of persuasion.

401

Test for Relevant Evidence | Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action. | In plain English: Ask whether the evidence changes the probability of a consequential fact, even slightly.

402

General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence | Relevant evidence is admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise: • the United States Constitution; • these rules; or • other rules prescribed in Midlands. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible. | In plain English: Relevant evidence generally comes in; irrelevant evidence does not.

403

Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons | The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. | In plain English: Exclude relevant proof only when a listed danger substantially outweighs its value.

404(a)

Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts | (a) Character Evidence. (1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait. (2) Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case. The following exceptions apply in a criminal case: (A) A defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it. In lieu of rebuttal witness availability, a defendant must first notify the court and opposing counsel in writing at the Captains’ Meeting of the intention to offer such evidence. If such notice is given, the form included with these Rules of Evidence should be completed and presented to the judges with the ballots, and the prosecution may also offer such character evidence during its case-in-chief. (B) A defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may: (i) offer evidence to rebut it; and (ii) offer evidence of the defendant’s same trait. In lieu of rebuttal witness availability, a defendant must first notify opposing counsel in writing at the Captains’ Meeting of the intention to offer such evidence. If such notice is given, the form included with these Rules of Evidence should be completed and presented to the judges with the ballots, and the prosecution may also offer such character evidence during its case-in-chief. (C) In a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the alleged victim’s trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor. (3) Exceptions for a Witness. Evidence of a witness’s character may be admitted under Rules 607, 608, and 609. | In plain English: Character evidence.

404(a)(1)

Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts | (1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait. | In plain English: You generally cannot argue that someone acted this way because that is the sort of person they are.

404(a)(2)

Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts | (2) Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case. The following exceptions apply in a criminal case: (A) A defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it. In lieu of rebuttal witness availability, a defendant must first notify the court and opposing counsel in writing at the Captains’ Meeting of the intention to offer such evidence. If such notice is given, the form included with these Rules of Evidence should be completed and presented to the judges with the ballots, and the prosecution may also offer such character evidence during its case-in-chief. (B) A defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may: (i) offer evidence to rebut it; and (ii) offer evidence of the defendant’s same trait. In lieu of rebuttal witness availability, a defendant must first notify opposing counsel in writing at the Captains’ Meeting of the intention to offer such evidence. If such notice is given, the form included with these Rules of Evidence should be completed and presented to the judges with the ballots, and the prosecution may also offer such character evidence during its case-in-chief. (C) In a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the alleged victim’s trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor. | In plain English: Character exceptions in a criminal case.

404(a)(2)(A)

Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts | (A) A defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it. In lieu of rebuttal witness availability, a defendant must first notify the court and opposing counsel in writing at the Captains’ Meeting of the intention to offer such evidence. If such notice is given, the form included with these Rules of Evidence should be completed and presented to the judges with the ballots, and the prosecution may also offer such character evidence during its case-in-chief. | In plain English: Defense offers defendant's pertinent trait & prosecution may rebut.

404(a)(2)(B)

Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts | (B) A defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may: (i) offer evidence to rebut it; and (ii) offer evidence of the defendant’s same trait. In lieu of rebuttal witness availability, a defendant must first notify opposing counsel in writing at the Captains’ Meeting of the intention to offer such evidence. If such notice is given, the form included with these Rules of Evidence should be completed and presented to the judges with the ballots, and the prosecution may also offer such character evidence during its case-in-chief. | In plain English: Defense offers victim's pertinent trait & prosecution may (i) rebut it (ii) offer same trait in defendant.

404(a)(2)(C)

Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts | (C) In a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the alleged victim’s trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor. | In plain English: Prosecution offers victim's pertinent trait of peace to counter victim being first aggressor.

404(a)(3)

Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts | (3) Exceptions for a Witness. Evidence of a witness’s character may be admitted under Rules 607, 608, and 609. | In plain English: Witness' character admissible for 607, 608, 609.

404(b)

Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts | (b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts. (1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. (2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. (3) Notice in a Criminal Case. The prosecution in a criminal case shall provide written notice of such intent prior to witness selection in the Captains’ Meeting. | In plain English: Crimes, wrongs or other acts.

404(b)(1)

Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts | (1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. | In plain English: Crimes, wrongs, other acts inadmissible for proving character and propensity.

404(b)(2)

Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts | (2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. | In plain English: A prior act can show a permitted purpose like motive, knowledge, or absence of mistake, not mere propensity.

404(b)(3)

Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts | (3) Notice in a Criminal Case. The prosecution in a criminal case shall provide written notice of such intent prior to witness selection in the Captains’ Meeting. | In plain English: Notice in a criminal case.

405

Methods of Proving Character | (a) By Reputation or Opinion. When evidence of a person’s character or character trait is admissible, it may be proved by testimony about the person’s reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination of the character witness, the court may allow inquiry into relevant specific instances of the person’s conduct. (b) By Specific Instances of Conduct. When a person’s character or character trait is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, the character or trait may also be proved by relevant specific instances of the person’s conduct. | In plain English: Methods of proving character.

405(a)

Methods of Proving Character | (a) By Reputation or Opinion. When evidence of a person’s character or character trait is admissible, it may be proved by testimony about the person’s reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination of the character witness, the court may allow inquiry into relevant specific instances of the person’s conduct. | In plain English: Proving character through opinion or repuation on direct and inquiry on specific instances on cross.

405(b)

Methods of Proving Character | (b) By Specific Instances of Conduct. When a person’s character or character trait is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, the character or trait may also be proved by relevant specific instances of the person’s conduct. | In plain English: Proving character through specific instance of conduct - only when character is essential element of charge, claim or defense.

406

Habit; Routine Practice | Evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice. The court may admit this evidence regardless of whether it is corroborated or whether there was an eyewitness. | In plain English: Evidence of a person's habit or organization's routine admissible to prove that in a certain instance they acted in accordance.

407

Subsequent Remedial Measures | When measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove: • negligence; • culpable conduct; • a defect in a product or its design; or • a need for a warning or instruction. But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as impeachment or – if disputed – proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures. | In plain English: Subsequent remedial measures inadmissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct or design defect admissible for impeachment; proving ownership, control or feasibility.

408

Compromise Offers and Negotiations | (a) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of the following is not admissible – on behalf of any party – either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction: (1) furnishing, promising, or offering – or accepting, promising to accept, or offering to accept – a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim; and (2) conduct or a statement made during compromise negotiations about the claim – except when offered in a criminal case and when the negotiations related to a claim by a public office in the exercise of its regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority. (b) Exceptions. The court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness’s bias or prejudice, negating a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution. | In plain English: Compromise offer or negotiations.

408(a)

Compromise Offers and Negotiations | (a) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of the following is not admissible – on behalf of any party – either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction: (1) furnishing, promising, or offering – or accepting, promising to accept, or offering to accept – a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim; and (2) conduct or a statement made during compromise negotiations about the claim – except when offered in a criminal case and when the negotiations related to a claim by a public office in the exercise of its regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority. | In plain English: Prohibited uses: the following inadmissible to prove (amount of) claim or impeachment.

408(a)(1)

Compromise Offers and Negotiations | (1) furnishing, promising, or offering – or accepting, promising to accept, or offering to accept – a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim; and | In plain English: Furnishing, accepting, offering (to accept), promising (to accept) a compromise.

408(a)(2)

Compromise Offers and Negotiations | (2) conduct or a statement made during compromise negotiations about the claim – except when offered in a criminal case and when the negotiations related to a claim by a public office in the exercise of its regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority. | In plain English: Statement or conduct made during negotiations unless in a criminal investigation when related to claim made by public office in exercise of regulatory, investigative, enforcement authority.

408(b)

Compromise Offers and Negotiations | (b) Exceptions. The court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness’s bias or prejudice, negating a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution. | In plain English: Exceptions: admissible for bias, negating undue delay, proving effort to obstruct criminal investigation/prosecution.

409

Offers to Pay Medical and Similar Expenses | Evidence of furnishing, promising to pay, or offering to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses resulting from an injury is not admissible to prove liability for the injury. | In plain English: Paying for injury inadmissible to prove liability.

410

Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements | (a) Prohibited Uses. In a civil or criminal case, evidence of the following is not admissible against the defendant who made the plea or participated in the plea discussions: (1) a guilty plea that was later withdrawn; (2) a nolo contendere plea; (3) omitted; or (4) a statement made during plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority if the discussions did not result in a guilty plea or they resulted in a later-withdrawn guilty plea. (b) Exceptions. The court may admit a statement described in Rule 410(a)(3) or (4): (1) in any proceeding in which another statement made during the same plea or plea discussions has been introduced, if in fairness the statements ought to be considered together; or (2) in a criminal proceeding for perjury or false statement, if the defendant made the statement under oath, on the record and with counsel present. | In plain English: Pleas, plea deals and related.

410(a)

Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements | (a) Prohibited Uses. In a civil or criminal case, evidence of the following is not admissible against the defendant who made the plea or participated in the plea discussions: (1) a guilty plea that was later withdrawn; (2) a nolo contendere plea; (3) omitted; or (4) a statement made during plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority if the discussions did not result in a guilty plea or they resulted in a later-withdrawn guilty plea. | In plain English: Prohibited uses: the following inadmissible against the defendant.

410(a)(1)

Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements | (1) a guilty plea that was later withdrawn; | In plain English: Withdrawn guilt plea.

410(a)(2)

Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements | (2) a nolo contendere plea; | In plain English: Nolo contendere plea (accepting punishment without guilt).

410(a)(4)

Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements | (4) a statement made during plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority if the discussions did not result in a guilty plea or they resulted in a later-withdrawn guilty plea. | In plain English: Statement made during discussions with attorney (or prosecution) which resulted in not guilty or withdrawn guilty plea.

410(b)

Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements | (b) Exceptions. The court may admit a statement described in Rule 410(a)(3) or (4): (1) in any proceeding in which another statement made during the same plea or plea discussions has been introduced, if in fairness the statements ought to be considered together; or (2) in a criminal proceeding for perjury or false statement, if the defendant made the statement under oath, on the record and with counsel present. | In plain English: Exceptions which apply to 410(a)(4).

410(b)(1)

Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements | (1) in any proceeding in which another statement made during the same plea or plea discussions has been introduced, if in fairness the statements ought to be considered together; or | In plain English: Rule of completeness as per plea statements.

410(b)(2)

Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements | (2) in a criminal proceeding for perjury or false statement, if the defendant made the statement under oath, on the record and with counsel present. | In plain English: Impeachment during criminal proceedings if made under oath.

411

Liability Insurance | Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to prove whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness’s bias or prejudice or proving agency, ownership, or control. | In plain English: (lack of) liability insurance inadmissible to prove negligence admissible for bias, or proving control, ownership, agency.

501

Privileges in General | Only privileges granted by a statute of the state of Midlands or by Midlands case law shall be recognized. | In plain English: Only priviliges granted by Midlands are recognized.

601

Competency to Testify in General | Every person is competent to be a witness unless these rules provide otherwise. | In plain English: Competency to testify.

602

Need for Personal Knowledge | A witness 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’s own testimony. This rule is subject to the provisions of Rule 703, relating to opinion testimony by expert witnesses. | In plain English: The witness needs a basis to know the fact firsthand.

603

Oath or Affirmation to Testify Truthfully | Before testifying, a witness shall be presumed to have been sworn in, by an oath or affirmation to testify truthfully administered in a form designed to impress that duty on the witness’s conscience. | In plain English: Constructively sworn in.

605

Judge’s Competency as a Witness | The presiding judge may not testify as a witness at the trial. A party need not object to preserve the issue. | In plain English: Judge may not testify as a witnes.

607

Who May Impeach a Witness | Any party, including the party that called the witness, may attack the witness’s credibility. | In plain English: Any party may impeach a witness/attack credibility.

608

A Witness’s Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness | (a) Reputation or Opinion Evidence. A witness’s credibility may be attacked or supported by testimony about the witness’s reputation for having a character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or by testimony in the form of an opinion about that character. But evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the witness’s character for truthfulness has been attacked. (b) Specific Instances of Conduct. Except for a criminal conviction under Rule 609, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness’s conduct in order to attack or support the witness’s character for truthfulness. But the court may, on cross-examination, allow them to be inquired into if they are probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of: (1) the witness; or (2) another witness whose character the witness being cross-examined has testified about. | In plain English: Witness's character for (un)truthfulness.

608(a)

A Witness’s Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness | (a) Reputation or Opinion Evidence. A witness’s credibility may be attacked or supported by testimony about the witness’s reputation for having a character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or by testimony in the form of an opinion about that character. But evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the witness’s character for truthfulness has been attacked. | In plain English: Credibility may be attacked or supported by reputation or opinion (with notice) - evidence of truthfulness only admissible if truthfulness is attacked.

608(b)

A Witness’s Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness | (b) Specific Instances of Conduct. Except for a criminal conviction under Rule 609, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness’s conduct in order to attack or support the witness’s character for truthfulness. But the court may, on cross-examination, allow them to be inquired into if they are probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of: (1) the witness; or (2) another witness whose character the witness being cross-examined has testified about. | In plain English: Except under 609, extrinsic evidence inadmissible to prove specific instances of conduct but permitted on cross examiniation if probative to (un)truthfulness of (1) the witness (2) another witness whose.

609

Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction | (a) In General. The following rules apply to attacking a witness’s character for truthfulness by evidence of a criminal conviction: (1) for a crime that, in the convicting jurisdiction, was punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than one year, the evidence: (A) must be admitted, subject to Rule 403, in a civil case or in a criminal case in which the witness is not a defendant; and (B) must be admitted in a criminal case in which the witness is a defendant, if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to that defendant; and (2) for any crime regardless of the punishment, the evidence must be admitted if the court can determine that establishing the elements of the crime required proving – or the witness’s admitting – a dishonest act or false state | In plain English: Impeachment by evidence of a criminal conviction.

609(a)

Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction | (a) In General. The following rules apply to attacking a witness’s character for truthfulness by evidence of a criminal conviction: (1) for a crime that, in the convicting jurisdiction, was punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than one year, the evidence: (A) must be admitted, subject to Rule 403, in a civil case or in a criminal case in which the witness is not a defendant; and (B) must be admitted in a criminal case in which the witness is a defendant, if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to that defendant; and (2) for any crime regardless of the punishment, the evidence must be admitted if the court can determine that establishing the elements of the crime required proving – or the witness’s admitting – a dishonest act or false statement. | In plain English: The folowing rules apply to attacking witness's truthfulness by evidence of criminal conviction.

609(a)(1)

Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction | (1) for a crime that, in the convicting jurisdiction, was punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than one year, the evidence: (A) must be admitted, subject to Rule 403, in a civil case or in a criminal case in which the witness is not a defendant; and (B) must be admitted in a criminal case in which the witness is a defendant, if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to that defendant; and | In plain English: For a crime punishable by death or over 1 year of imprisonment, the evidence must be admitted: (A) where witness is not the defendant: subject to 403 (B) in criminal case where witness is defendant: if.

609(a)(2)

Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction | (2) for any crime regardless of the punishment, the evidence must be admitted if the court can determine that establishing the elements of the crime required proving – or the witness’s admitting – a dishonest act or false statement. | In plain English: Any crime regardless of punishment if establishing elements is required to prove dishonest act or false statement.

609(b)

Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction | (b) Limit on Using the Evidence After 10 Years. This subdivision (b) applies if more than 10 years have passed since the witness’s conviction or release from confinement for it, whichever is later. Evidence of the conviction is admissible only if: (1) its probative value, supported by specific facts and circumstances, substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect; and (2) the proponent gives an adverse party reasonable written notice of the intent to use it so that the party has a fair opportunity to contest its use. | In plain English: If more than 10 yeats have passed since the witness's conviction or release; evidence is only admissible if: (1) substantially more probative AND (2) written notice.

609(c)

Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction | (c) Effect of a Pardon, Annulment, or Certificate of Rehabilitation. Evidence of a conviction is not admissible if: (1) the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, certificate of rehabilitation, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding that the person has been rehabilitated, and the person has not been convicted of a later crime punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than one year; or (2) the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding of innocence. | In plain English: Evidence of a convicition inadmissible if: (1) subject of pardon, annulment, certificate of rehab or other equivalent based on: finding of rehab and person has not been convicted of a later crime OR (2) subject.

609(d)

Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction | (d) Juvenile Adjudications. Evidence of a juvenile adjudication is admissible under this rule only if: (1) it is offered in a criminal case; (2) the adjudication was of a witness other than the defendant; (3) an adult’s conviction for that offense would be admissible to attack the adult’s credibility; and (4) admitting the evidence is necessary to fairly determine guilt or innocence. | In plain English: Evidence of juvenile adjudication admissible if: (1) it's offered in a criminal case (2) the adjudication was of a witness other than the defendant (3) adult equivalent would be admissible AND (4) admitting.

609(e)

Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction | (e) Pendency of an Appeal. A conviction that satisfies this rule is admissible even if an appeal is pending. Evidence of the pendency is also admissible. | In plain English: Conviction that satisifes rule is admissible even if appeal is pending.

610

Religious Beliefs or Opinions | Evidence of a witness’s religious beliefs or opinions is not admissible to attack or support the witness’s credibility. | In plain English: Religious belief not admissible for credibility.

611

Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence | (a) Control by the Court; Purposes. The court should exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence so as to: (1) make those procedures effective for determining the truth; (2) avoid wasting time; and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment. (b) Scope of Examinations. The initial cross examination is not limited to matters discussed on direct examination. Re-direct and re-cross examination are permitted. But any re-direct or re-cross examination may not go beyond the subject matter of the examination immediately preceding it and matters affecting the witness’s credibility. (c) Leading Questions. Leading questions should not be used on direct examination except as necessary to develop the witness’s testimony. Ordinarily the court should allow leading questions: (1) on crossexamination; and (2) when a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party. | In plain English: Mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence.

611(a)

Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence | (a) Control by the Court; Purposes. The court should exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence so as to: (1) make those procedures effective for determining the truth; (2) avoid wasting time; and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment. | In plain English: Court should exercise reasonable control as to (1) making procedures effective for determining the truth (2) avoid wasting time (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.

611(b)

Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence | (b) Scope of Examinations. The initial cross examination is not limited to matters discussed on direct examination. Re-direct and re-cross examination are permitted. But any re-direct or re-cross examination may not go beyond the subject matter of the examination immediately preceding it and matters affecting the witness’s credibility. | In plain English: Scope of examination limited to examination immediately preceding it.

611(c)

Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence | (c) Leading Questions. Leading questions should not be used on direct examination except as necessary to develop the witness’s testimony. Ordinarily the court should allow leading questions: (1) on crossexamination; and (2) when a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party. | In plain English: Leading questions not allowed on direct examination except on (1) on cross examination OR (2) when a party calls a hostile witness, adverse party or a witness identified with adverse party.

612

Writing Used to Refresh a Witness’s Memory | A witness may use any material provided by AMTA to refresh memory either during or prior to giving testimony. | In plain English: Writing used to refresh a witness's memory.

613

Witness’s Prior Statement | (a) Showing or Disclosing the Statement During Examination. When examining a witness about the witness’s prior statement, a party need not show it or disclose its contents to the witness. But the party must, on request, show it or disclose its contents to an adverse party’s attorney. (b) Extrinsic Evidence of a Prior Inconsistent Statement. Unless the court orders otherwise, extrinsic evidence of a witness’s prior inconsistent statement may not be admitted until after the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and an adverse party is given an opportunity to examine the witness about it. This subdivision (b) does not apply to an opposing party’s statement under Rule 801(d)(2). | In plain English: Witness's prior statement.

613(a)

Witness’s Prior Statement | (a) Showing or Disclosing the Statement During Examination. When examining a witness about the witness’s prior statement, a party need not show it or disclose its contents to the witness. But the party must, on request, show it or disclose its contents to an adverse party’s attorney. | In plain English: Not required to disclose contents of prior statements to witness but must show opposing counsel on request.

613(b)

Witness’s Prior Statement | (b) Extrinsic Evidence of a Prior Inconsistent Statement. Unless the court orders otherwise, extrinsic evidence of a witness’s prior inconsistent statement may not be admitted until after the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and an adverse party is given an opportunity to examine the witness about it. This subdivision (b) does not apply to an opposing party’s statement under Rule 801(d)(2). | In plain English: Extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statement only admissible if given the opportunity to explain or deny the statement.

614

Court’s Calling or Examining a Witness | Calling and/or examining of a witness by the court is not allowed. | In plain English: Calling/examining of witness by court not permitted.

615(a)

Excluding Witnesses from the Courtroom; Preventing an Excluded Witness’s | (a) Excluding Witnesses. At a party’s request, the court must order witnesses constructively excluded so that they cannot hear other witnesses’ testimony. But this rule does not authorize constructively excluding: (1) a party who is a natural person; (2) an officer or employee of a party that is not a natural person, after being designated as the party’s representative; (3) omitted; or (4) a person authorized by a statute provided in the case materials to be present. | In plain English: Constructive sequestration except (1) party who is a natural person (2) officer or employee of (non natural person) party who is designated the representative OR (3) person authorized by case documents.

615(b)

Excluding Witnesses from the Courtroom; Preventing an Excluded Witness’s | (b) Additional Orders to Prevent Disclosing and Accessing Testimony. An order under (a) operates only to exclude witnesses from the courtroom. But the court may also, by order: (1) prohibit disclosure of trial testimony to witnesses who are excluded from the courtroom; and (2) prohibit excluded witnesses from accessing trial testimony. | In plain English: 615(a) prohibits (1) disclosure of testimony to excluded witnesses and (2) excluded witnesses from accessing testimony.

701

Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses | If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702. | In plain English: A lay opinion must come from firsthand perception, help the jury, and avoid expert knowledge.

702

Testimony by Expert Witnesses | A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case. | In plain English: An expert needs qualified specialized knowledge, enough facts, a reliable method, and reliable application.

702(a)

Testimony by Expert Witnesses | (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; | In plain English: The specialized knowledge must help the fact finder understand evidence or decide a fact.

702(b)

Testimony by Expert Witnesses | (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; | In plain English: The opinion must rest on enough facts or data.

702(c)

Testimony by Expert Witnesses | (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and | In plain English: The expert must use reliable principles and methods.

702(d)

Testimony by Expert Witnesses | (d) the expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case. | In plain English: The expert must apply those principles and methods reliably to this case.

703

Bases of an Expert’s Opinion Testimony | An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed. If experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject, they need not be admissible for the opinion to be admitted. But if the facts or data would otherwise be inadmissible, the proponent of the opinion may disclose them to the jury only if their probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect. | In plain English: An expert can rely on certain inadmissible information, but disclosure to the jury requires the stronger balancing test.

704

Opinion on an Ultimate Issue | (a) In General – Not Automatically Objectionable. An opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue. (b) Exception. In a criminal case, an expert witness must not state an opinion about whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense. Those matters are for the trier of fact alone. | In plain English: Opinion on ultimate issue.

704(a)

Opinion on an Ultimate Issue | (a) In General – Not Automatically Objectionable. An opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue. | In plain English: Opinion on ultimate issue not objectionable.

704(b)

Opinion on an Ultimate Issue | (b) Exception. In a criminal case, an expert witness must not state an opinion about whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense. Those matters are for the trier of fact alone. | In plain English: In a criminal case, no expert may testify to whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime or defense.

705

Disclosing the Facts or Data Underlying an Expert’s Opinion | Unless the court orders otherwise, an expert may state an opinion – and give the reasons for it – without first testifying to the underlying facts or data. But the expert may be required to disclose those facts or data on cross-examination. | In plain English: Expert need not disclose underlying facts and data but can be crossed on them.

801

Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay | (a) Statement. “Statement” means a person’s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal | In plain English: Definitions and exclusions of hearsay.