2025 Mock Trial Obj and Case Law

602

Need for personal knowledge

701

Opinion Testimony by a Lay witness

701 (a)

rationally based perception

701 (b)

helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue

701 c

Not based on specialized knowledge

702

Testimony by an expert witness

702 a

based on specialized knowledge that will help to understand the facts of the issue

702 b

based on sufficient facts or data

702 c

is the product of a reliable method

702 d

they’ve reliably applied the method to the facts of the case

803 (3)

Then Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition

805

Hearsay within Hearsay

901 (b) 5

Opinion of a Voice

803 (6)

Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity

803 (6) a

 the record was made at or near the time by – or from information transmitted by – someone with knowledge

803 (6) b

 the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business,  organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit

803 (6) c

making the record was a regular practice of that activity

803 (6) d

 all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified  witness

803 (6) e

 neither the source of information nor the method or circumstances of preparation  indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

Ginger v Heisman

Texts or emails can be used in court if there’s enough evidence to let a jury reasonably believe who sent them. If the message comes from a phone number or email address linked to a person, that’s usually enough to assume they sent it, unless there’s a good reason to think someone else did.

Richards v Mississipi

Experts can use otherwise unadmissable hearsay if it helps them come to their conclusions.

Tarot Readers Association of Midlands v Merrel Dow

Under MRE 702(c), judges evaluate reliability by considering factors like testing, peer review, error rate, and acceptance in the field. These factors matter but aren’t decisive. For example, a lack of publication doesn’t automatically rule out evidence, as new theories may not be published yet. Judges base their decisions on the overall circumstances.

Davis v Addams

Trial judges must ensure that scientific evidence is both relevant and reliable. To determine reliability, they focus on the methods used and the data relied on, not the conclusions

Jeffries v Polk County Police Department

Law enforcement officers are usually not considered experts under  702 or related rulings. However, they may testify based on specialized knowledge from their training and experience under  701. If their opinion is based on general law enforcement training (e.g., following evidence collection protocols),  702 doesn’t apply, 701 and other evidence rules govern instead.

State v Richardson

It was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to allow the forensic pathologist to testify to the cause and manner of death even though the pathologist was not tendered as an expert prior to providing her testimony. Unlike other jurisdictions, Midlands does not require a party to “tender an expert” before eliciting an expert opinion.

Omnidirectional Solutions v Little Bird Word

As long as an expert can explain their background, training, and methods, judges shouldn’t block their testimony just because it hasn’t been peer-reviewed or doesn’t have a known error rate. Instead, any doubts about credibility should be handled through cross-examination.

America's Best Cookie v International House of Waffles

In Midlands, the definition of “hearsay” includes out-of-court statements by a witness who is on the stand or by another person who has or will be testifying in a particular trial.

State v Tate

In a criminal case, Rule 801(d)(2) only lets the State use a defendant’s statements. The defense cannot use the defendant’s own statements, even if the State already brought up other out-of-court statements by the defendant.

Homel v Arnzen

For purposes of MRE 801(d)(2), police officers, prosecutors, informants, and others working with law enforcement officials are not an “opposing party” of a criminal defendant.

State v Hilton

Rule 801(d)(2) covers statements used against the other party, but it doesn’t have to be “against their interest” to count. That wording only exists in Rule 804(b)(3). If the writers wanted 801(d)(2) to require that, they would have said so.

State v Smarda

A witness testifying to their own recollection of what they saw occur on a video recording cannot be hearsay. In this case, the defendant describing people’s actions in a video isn’t hearsay. But if a witness repeats what was said in the video, that could be hearsay unless an exception applies.

State v Bowling

For Rule 801(d)(2)(E), a conspiracy only has to be proven by “more likely than not.” Since witnesses can’t be recalled, a party can ask the court to allow a statement temporarily until other witnesses provide more proof. The judge decides whether to allow this.

Kane Software v Mars Investigation (Trial by Ambush)

Midlands does not permit parties to use their experts as weapons in a trial by ambush or unfair surprise. Expert reports that are exchanged prior to trial must contain a complete statement of all opinions the expert will testify to and the basis and reasons for them, the facts or data considered by the expert in forming their opinions, and the expert’s qualifications.

Stip 10

The Parties agree that they waive all objections to the admissibility of Exhibits 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 21. Parties further agree that these exhibits may be admitted into evidence during the case in chief of either party.

Stip 11

The Parties agree that Exhibits 1, 8, 17, 22, are preadmitted as evidence without objections and may be referenced at any time during the trial starting with opening statements.

Stip 16

The Parties agree that Charlie Martin’s personal cell phone was not used at any point between February 1 and April 7

601

Competency to Testify in General

401

Test for Relevant Evidence

401 (a)

must make the facts more or less likely

401 (b)

the fact is of consequence in determining the action. 

705

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.

704

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.

703

 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.

State v Chaterjee

If a criminal defendant chooses to testify, the defendant’s credibility may be challenged just like that of any other witness.

Ellis v Norton

Testimony about an individual’s willingness to strain or “push” themselves mentally, physically, or both to finish a task does not constitute “[e]vidence of a person’s character or character trait,” the only evidence excluded by MRE 404(a)(1).

Kennedy v Kennedy-Jones

If there’s enough evidence for a reasonable jury to believe that a person made a statement, the court must treat that person as the one who made it when deciding if the statement can be admitted.

Ahmed v O’Keeffe

This was a civil case about an alleged assault. The plaintiff testified on direct examination but, during cross-examination, failed to answer some questions, claiming it was due to a condition caused by the assault. The court ruled that the judgment for the plaintiff must be reversed. It doesn’t matter why the witness couldn’t answer—if a witness can’t or won’t respond to proper cross-examination questions, their entire testimony must be thrown out.

State v Singh

The prosecution must show that the crime happened in the right location (venue) and that the defendant is the person who committed it.

State v Tamoe

A criminal defendant is never required to present evidence or offer an alternative theory of the crime. If a defendant does so, however, a prosecutor may note the defense’s failure to offer evidence in support of its theory of the case. Such comments do not imply that the burden of proof has shifted to the defense.

Zomerfield v Noto

Under MRE 104(a), a judge can consider both admissible and inadmissible evidence when deciding if a piece of evidence should be allowed. But this doesn’t make the inadmissible evidence itself usable in trial—it’s only used by the judge to make the decision.

State v Arbuckle

The defendant appealed a murder conviction under MPC 18-303(A)(2). The State claimed he acted recklessly with extreme disregard for human life (depraved heart murder). The court found the State only proved simple recklessness, which supports manslaughter, not depraved heart murder. Depraved heart murder requires reckless actions showing extreme indifference to life, usually through multiple high-risk acts. Since there was only one reckless act, the conviction was overturned.

403

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.

405

Methods for Proving Character

405 (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.

405 (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.

803 (1)

Present Sense Impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.

803 (2)

Excited Utterance. A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.

803 (5) a

is on a matter the witness once knew about but now cannot recall well enough to testify fully and accurately;