Objections/MRE

401/402

Relevance - nothing about the testimony makes the disputed fact more or less likely

403

Excluding relevant information if its probative value is outweighed by it being overly prejudicial, confusing, misleading, wasting time, or needlessly cumulative

When is a piece of prejudice fair?

When it can convince the jury of a contested fact

404(a)(1)

When character evidence is not allowed - 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 (propensity). 

404(a)(2)(a)

First exception to inadmissible character evidence - only applies to criminal cases, don’t try to use it

404(a)(2)(b)

Second exception to inadmissible character evidence - only applies to criminal cases, don’t try to use it

404(a)(2)(c)

Third exception to inadmissible character evidence - only applies to criminal cases, don’t try to use it

404(a)(3)

Exceptions for a witness -  Evidence of a witness’s character may be admitted under Rules 607, 608, and 609.

404(b)(1)

Prohibited uses of crimes, wrongs, and other acts: 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. 

404(b)(2)

Permitted uses of crimes, wrongs, and other acts: 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.

404(b)(3)

Notice in a criminal case: not relevant for our case

404 (in general)

Propensity arguments are inadmissible

602

Need for personal knowledge: This goes hand in hand with Lack of Foundation. The only difference is that you make this objection when you believe the necessary foundation can never be laid. 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.

608(a)

Reputation or opinion evidence about truthfulness: A witness can testify that another witness has a reputation for being dishonest (or honest), or give their personal opinion about that person's truthful character. In turn, evidence of truthful character can only be presented if a witness is being attacked for their truthfulness - can’t just walk in and be like mrs stackhouse are you perfect?

609

In general: lets you attack a witness’s credibility by showing they’ve been convicted of certain crimes in the past, bc criminal convictions involving dishonesty give the jury a legitimate reason to be more skeptical of that person’s truthfulness on the stand - not blocked by 404 bc it bars using character to prove acting in conformity, 608-609 are about whether you should believe the witness’s tesitmony on the stand right now

611(a)

Badgering - the court should exercise control over the mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence so as to make those procedures effective for determining the truth, avoid wasting time, and protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarassment - basically if the attorney is cutting them off, really aggressive, or in their face

611(b)

Outside the scope - an attorney is recrossing/redirecting a witness and the redirect did not cover any of the topics they are not asking about the previous direct/cross

611(c)

Leading - questions that prompt or suggest a specific answer, only can be asked on cross-examination or very specific scenarios that don’t pertain to this case

701

Opinion testimony by a lay witness - If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: 

1. rationally based on the witness’s perception; 

2. helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and 

3. not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702. 

702

Testimony by an expert witness - 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: 

1. 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; 

2. the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; 

3. the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and 

4. the expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case. 

703

Basis of an expert’s opinion testimony - Experts can rely on inadmissible facts or data to form their conclusion, AND that underlying inadmissible information may be disclosed to the jury only if its probative value in helping the jury evaluate the expert's opinion substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.

704

Opinion on an ultimate issue

704(a)

In General – Not Automatically Objectionable. An opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue.

704(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. (n/a)

705

After being qualified as an expert, a witness can state their conclusion/opinion first, without first having to walk through all the underlying facts or data that support it.

801

Hearsay - statements being used for the truth of the matter asserted

801(a)

For something to be hearsay, it has to be a statement

801(b)

Declarant = person who makes a statement

801(c)

“Hearsay” means a statement that: 

(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and 

(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement

801(d)

Statements that are fundamentally not hearsay (exclusions)

801(d)(1)

1. A Declarant-Witness’s Prior Statement. The declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination about a prior statement, and the statement:

   1. is inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony and was given under penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition; 

   2. is consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or motive in so testifying; 

   3. identifies a person as someone the declarant perceived earlier

801(d)(2)

An Opposing Party’s Statement. The statement is offered against an opposing party and:

1. was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity; 

2. is one the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true; 

3. was made by a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject; 

4. was made by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed; or 

5. was made by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. 

The statement must be considered but does not by itself establish the declarant’s authority under (C); the existence or scope of the relationship under (D); or the existence of the conspiracy or participation in it under (E). 

802

Hearsay is not admissible UNLESS an exception, exclusion, or case law applies

803(1)

Hearsay exception: Present sense impression - narrating

803(2)

Hearsay exception: excited utterance, still under stress/excitement and haven’t had time to fabricate it

803(3)

Hearsay exception: then existing mental, physical, or emotional condition - a statement someone makes about how they're feeling right now (their current physical state, emotion, or intent) at the moment they say it. 

803(5)

Hearsay exception: Recorded recollection - This applies when a witness is on the stand but can't remember something well enough to testify about it, even after trying to refresh their memory, but there's a written record they made earlier, back when the event was fresh in their mind, that accurately captures what happened. That written record can be read into evidence (though usually not physically handed to the jury as an exhibit, unless the opposing party wants it in).

803(6)

Hearsay exception: Records of a regularly conducted business activity

803(7)

Hearsay exception: If a business normally would keep a record of something happening, and that kind of record doesn't exist for a particular event, the absence of that record can itself be used as evidence that the event didn't happen (or didn't happen the way someone claims).

803(8)

Hearsay exception: This lets in records, reports, and statements made by government agencies or public offices, documenting their own activities, observations, or investigations, without needing to call the specific government employee who created the record to testify Note: Each prong NEEDS to be met in order to satisfy this exception

803(21)

Hearsay exception: This lets in evidence of a person's reputation in their community, workplace, or among people who know them, specifically reputation for a particular character trait, like honesty, peacefulness, or a general character for something relevant to the case. 

803(22)

Hearsay exception: Lets you use someone's past criminal conviction as proof that they actually did the crime, without having to prove it all over again from scratch. Why it's allowed: if a court already found someone guilty (which requires a very high standard of proof), the law says that's reliable enough to just accept and reuse in a later case, instead of re-doing the whole trial on those facts. Key limit: this usually only works for more serious crimes, ones punishable by more than a year in prison (basically, felonies).

804

List of exceptions that only kick in IF the declarant is unavailable as a witness

804(a)(1-5)

Criteria for a witness being unavailable

804(b)(1-6)

NOT excluded under the unavailable witness rule - either bc:

• 804(b)(1): Former testimony: testimony given in an earlier proceeding (like a deposition or prior trial), where the other side had an opportunity to cross-examine

• 804(b)(2): Dying declaration: a statement made by someone who believed their death was imminent, about the cause or circumstances of what they believed was their impending death

• 804(b)(3): Statement against interest: a statement that was so contrary to the speaker's own interest (financial, legal, or even self-incriminating) that a reasonable person wouldn't have said it unless they believed it was true

• 804(b)(4): Statement of Personal or Family History: This lets in a statement about a person's own birth, marriage, divorce, family relationships, ancestry, or similar personal/family facts, even though the speaker is unavailable, because these are the kinds of things a person would generally know accurately about themselves or their own family, without much reason to lie about them.

• 804(b)(6): Forfeiture by wrongdoing: if a party caused the declarant's unavailability specifically to prevent their testimony, they forfeit the right to object to that person's hearsay statements coming

805

Hearsay within hearsay: Hearsay within hearsay is not excluded by the rule against hearsay if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the rule.

806

When a hearsay statement has been admitted into evidence, and the person who made that statement isn’t in court to be cross-examined, you can attack or support the credibility of that absent declarant by bringing in other exhibits, offering a character witness, showing evidence of bias, etc.

901

Must prove authenticity of a document before entering it by a preponderance of the evidence

1002

Best evidence: An original writing, recording, or photograph is required to prove its content unless rules state otherwise; obviously, this excludes ones that aren’t in the case packet, and if oyu want to prove what the doc/recording/photo says or shows, you usually need to produce the original; just put the real thing in front of the jury

Speculation

Noted in both 602 and 701; witnesses are only allowed to talk about things they have personal knowledge of, so they can’t start assuming another person’s mindset; DONT CITE A RULE NUMBER!!! DELVING into the mindset vs RATIONALLY based on their 5 senses when arguing this one

Counsel testifying

Attorney states something that the witness has not yet said - asks a question that assumes a fact

Asked and answered

Cannot ask the exact same question more than once in an examination if the witness already gave a clear answer

Argumentative

The attorney’s question contains an argument

Compound

Attorney asking two or more questions at once

Improper evidentiary procedure

When the opposing counsel does not go through the proper steps to enter in evidence

Improper impeachment

When the opposing counsel does not go through the proper steps in order to impeach, or the impeachment itself was invalid due to the witness not contradicting their own statement