Mock Trial Rules (Rule Title and Number to Rule)

The number and title of the rule is matched with it's description in order to familiarize Needham High Mock Trial members in citing each one.

Rule 101. Scope.

Scope.

These simplified rules of evidence and procedure govern the trial proceedings of the Mock Trial Program. The only rules of evidence that may be cited are those included here.

Rule 102. Objections Beyond the Scope of These Rules.

Objections Beyond the Scope of These Rules

An objection which is not contained or referred to

in these Simplified Rules of Evidence and Proce-

dure shall not be considered by the court. Counsel

responding to such an objection is responsible for

pointing out to the judge that the objection raised is

not contained in these rules. If counsel fails to do so,

the court may exercise its discretion in considering

such an objection.

Rule 201. Form of Question During Direct Examination.

Form of Question During Direct Examination

On direct examination, witnesses may not be asked

leading questions except as may be necessary to elicit

background information or basic foundation to de-

velop the witness’ testimony. A leading question is one

that suggests to the witness the answer desired by the

examiner, and often suggests a “yes” or “no” answer.

Rule 202. Scope of Direct Examination.

Scope of Direct Examination

Direct examination may cover any relevant facts about which the witness has personal knowledge.

Rule 203. Narration.

Narration

(a) Questions Calling for Narrative Testimony

Questions on direction examination must ask for specific information, and may not be so broad that the witness is invited to wander or narrate a story. Questions calling for narrative testimony are objectionable.

Example of a question that calls for narration:

“Please tell the court everything you know about the accident.”

(b) Narrative and Non-responsive Answers

The witness’ answer to a question may not go beyond the facts about which the question was asked. Answers that go beyond the scope of the question are objectionable. If the judge sustains an objection on these grounds, the objecting attorney may make a motion to strike the improper testimony.

Rule 204. Form of Question During Cross-Examination.

Form of Question During Cross-Examination

On cross-examination, an attorney may ask leading questions of the opponent’s witness.

Rule 205. Scope of Cross-examination.

Scope of Cross-examination

Cross-examination may cover any relevant facts about which the witness has personal knowledge (whether or not raised during the direct examination) or matters relating to the credibility of the witness.

Rule 206. Redirect Examination.

Redirect Examination

After cross-examination, a maximum of three additional questions may be asked by the direct examining attorney, but questions must be limited to matters raised by the attorney on cross-examination. The judge has the discretion to limit the scope of redirect.

Rule 207. Re-cross-examination.

Re-cross-examination

After redirect examination, a maximum of three additional questions may be asked by the cross-examining attorney, but questions must be limited to matters raised by the attorney on redirect examination. The judge has the discretion to limit the scope of re-cross.

Rule 208. Recalling Witnesses Prohibited.

Recalling Witnesses Prohibited

After a witness has been excused from further testifying, the witness may not be recalled by either party.

301. “Invented Fact” Defined.

“Invented Fact” Defined

An “invented fact” is a material fact which is not

contained anywhere in the stipulations, in the evi-

dence, or in any witness’ affidavit, and which is not a

“fair and reasonable extrapolation” of facts which are

clearly found within such case materials. An “invented

fact” is not permitted because it would promote the

unfair creation of inferences which are not supported

by the case materials. The case materials provide

sufficient factual and legal points on which to ques-

tion each witness without the witness inventing, or

the cross-examining attorney requiring the witness to

invent, facts.

A fair and reasonable extrapolation does not materially

affect the outcome of the case or the arguments in the

case, and must be reasonably inferred to be within the

personal knowledge of the witness.

Example of a fair and reasonable extrapolation:

A witness/soccer player states in their affidavit that the final score

of the game was 2–1. The coach of the

team does not mention the score of the game in their

affidavit. It is reasonable to assume that the coach

would have personal knowledge of the score, and it is

a fair and reasonable extrapolation of the facts con-

tained in the evidence (assuming the coach was at the

game) to know the final score. The coach is permitted

to testify that the final score of the game was 2–1.

Example of an unfair and/or unreasonable ex-

trapolation: In the above example, if a conversation

between two players occurred during the soccer game,

and the statements made during the conversation

are important to the case, unless the coach’s affidavit

contains sufficient information to provide a founda-

tion for the coach to testify to what was said, it is not

reasonable to assume that the coach heard the con-

versation just because they were at the game. It would

be an unfair extrapolation for the coach to claim that

they heard the conversation.

Rule 302. Invention of Facts on Direct Examination.

Invention of Facts on Direct Examination

On direct examination, each witness is bound by the  facts contained within their written affidavit, but is  not required when testifying to be limited only to  facts contained in their affidavit. A witness may testify  to knowledge of other facts contained within the case  materials, and to fair and reasonable extrapolations  thereof, but such testimony must be reasonably based  upon their personal knowledge.

Rule 303. Methods of Redressing Invention of Facts on Direct Examination.

Methods of Redressing Invention of Facts on Direct Examination

(a) Traditional Impeachment

If a witness testifies in contradiction to a fact in

the witness’ own affidavit, opposing counsel should

impeach the witness during cross-examination. If

a witness testifies to an “invented fact,” opposing

counsel may elect to impeach the witness during

cross-examination, by asking questions to confirm

that the fact is not contained in the witness’ affidavit

(or elsewhere in the case materials), or may elect

to object to the “invented fact,” pursuant to Rule

303(b), at the time it is offered by the witness.

(b) Objection Raised at Bench Conference

If a witness testifies to an “invented fact,” opposing

counsel may immediately request a bench confer-

ence, at which time counsel may object to the in

-vention of facts (as defined above). After the bench

conference, any fact deemed by the judge to be an

“invented fact” shall not be permitted; the “invent-

ed fact” shall be stricken, and the witness shall be

instructed to answer counsel’s questions without

reference to the “invented fact.”

Invention of facts objections should be raised

at bench conferences to preserve the integrity and

decorum of the trial atmosphere. However, the

granting of a bench conference is a discretionary

decision of the judge and a request for a bench

conference may not always be granted. If the judge

declines a request for a bench conference, the

invention of facts objection may be raised in open

court.

Sample objections that may be made at the bench

conference:

“Your Honor, the witness is creating facts which are

not in the record.”

“Your Honor, the witness has invented facts which are

not supported by the record.”

“Your Honor, the facts offered constitute an unfair or

unreasonable extrapolation from the facts contained

in the record.”

At a bench conference, counsel should be prepared to

direct the judge to the invention of facts rules.

Rule 304. Invention of Facts on Cross-examination.

Invention of Facts on Cross-examination

On cross-examination, if a witness is asked a question

the answer to which is not contained in the stipula-

tions, in the evidence or in any witness’ affidavit, the

witness may respond with any answer as long as it

is responsive to the question, is not contrary to the

witness’ affidavit and does not contain unnecessary

elaboration. If the witness provides an answer that is

contrary to the witness’ affidavit, the affidavit may be

used to impeach the witness’ testimony.

A witness may not be impeached for failing to adopt

facts from another affidavit or exhibit if they elect not

to adopt such facts. If a witness is unable to respond

in accordance with Rule 304, they may claim to have

no recollection on which to base an answer. Questions

calling for the invention of facts on cross-examination

are not objectionable on those grounds.

Example: If the soccer player in the examples un

-der Rule 301 above claims that the soccer coach was

present and heard the entire conversation, but the

coach does not admit that in their affidavit, the coach

is not required to adopt the player’s statement and is

allowed to deny that they heard the conversation, or

may testify that they do not recall whether they heard

the conversation. The coach’s credibility may not be

questioned (i.e., they may not be impeached) solely

because they failed to adopt the assertion of the soccer

player that the coach heard the conversation. If the

coach is asked whether they heard the conversation,

counsel’s objection on the grounds that the question

calls for invention should be overruled.

Rule 401. Definition of “Relevant Evidence.”

Definition of “Relevant Evidence”

“Relevant evidence” means evidence which tends to

make the existence of any fact that is of consequence

to the determination of the outcome of the case more

or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

Rule 402. Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible.

Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible

Relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise

provided in these rules or other law provided in the

case materials. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.

Rule 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion or Waste of Time.

Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion or Waste of Time

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if (a) its

probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair

prejudice; (b) if it confuses the issues; (c) if it is mis-

leading; or (d) if it causes undue delay, wastes time, or

is a needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Rule 404. Character Evidence not Admissible to Prove Conduct, Exceptions, Other Crimes.

Character Evidence not Admissible to Prove Conduct, Exceptions, Other Crimes

Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is

not admissible for the purpose of proving action in

conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except

for:

(1) Character of accused. Evidence of a pertinent

character trait offered by an accused, or by the

prosecution to rebut same; or

(2) Character of victim. Evidence of a pertinent char-

acter trait of the victim of a crime offered by an

accused, or by the prosecution to rebut same; or

(3) Character of witness. Evidence of the character of

a witness as provided in Rules 603, 604 and 605.

NOTE: Although evidence of a person’s crimes or

other wrongs is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in

conformity therewith on a particular occasion

(except for the instances noted above), it

may be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of

motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowl-

edge, identity or absence of mistake or accident.

Example: Sam the Safecracker is on trial for a bank

robbery in which the bank vault was opened by using

both a dentist’s drill and the Pip Diamond, a uniquely

flawless jewel that had been stolen from a safe in the

Famed Farmer Museum the previous year. Evidence

that Sam participated in the Famed Farmer heist is

not admissible to prove that Sam is guilty of the bank

robbery, but may be admissible to show that Sam had

the opportunity to open the safe (using the Pip Dia-

mond) or that the Famed Farmer heist was part of the

plan or preparation for the bank robbery (in which

the Pip Diamond was used).

Rule 405. Methods of Proving Character.

Methods of Proving Character

(a) Reputation or Opinion

In all cases where evidence of character or a

character trait is admissible, proof may be made

by testimony as to reputation or in the form of an

opinion. On cross-examination, questions may be

asked regarding relevant, specific conduct.

(b) Specific Instances of Conduct

In cases where character or a character trait is an

essential element of a charge, claim or defense,

proof may also be made of specific instances of that

person’s conduct.

Rule 406. Subsequent Remedial Measures.

Subsequent Remedial Measures

When measures taken after an event, which, if taken

before, would have made the event less likely to occur,

evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible

to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connec-

tion with the event. This rule does not require the

exclusion of such subsequent remedial measures when

offered for other purposes, such as proving ownership,

control, or feasibility of precautionary measures (if

controverted), or for impeachment.

Example: In a lawsuit for negligence arising out of a

slip and fall in a grocery store parking lot, evidence

that the grocery store added a sign after the accident,

warning customers that the area may be slippery, will

not be admissible to prove that the grocery store was

at fault for the accident, but may be admissible to

show that the parking lot is under the control of the

grocery store (if the store owner denies it).

Rule 407. Compromise and Offers to Compromise.

Compromise and Offers to Compromise

Evidence of compromise or offers to compromise

a claim which was disputed as to either validity or

amount is not admissible to prove liability of the

claim or its amount. Evidence of conduct or state-

ments made in compromise negotiations is likewise

not admissible. This rule does not require exclusion of

such evidence when it is offered for another purpose.

Rule 501. Prerequisites for Admission of Physical Evidence.

Prerequisites for Admission of Physical Evidence

Physical evidence may be introduced if it is relevant.

Physical evidence will not be admitted into evidence

until it has been identified and shown to be authentic,

or its identification and authenticity have been stipu-

lated. That a document is authentic means only that it

is what it appears to be, not that the statements in the

document are necessarily true.

NOTE: The exhibits in this mock trial are not

automatically admissible at trial. While the authen-

ticity of the exhibits has been stipulated, a proper

foundation must be laid in order to introduce an

exhibit in evidence.

Rule 502. Procedure for Introducing Physical Evidence.

Procedure for Introducing Physical Evidence

The proper procedure to use when introducing a

physical object or document for identification and/or

in evidence is as follows:

• Show the exhibit to opposing counsel, so that counsel is aware of what exhibit is being offered.

• Ask the judge to mark the exhibit for identification.

“Your Honor, I ask that this document be marked

as Exhibit A for identification.” At this point, you

are not offering the exhibit as evidence, but rather

marking it so that it is clear what document you

are referring to when asking the witness questions

about the exhibit.

• Hand the document to the witness and ask the

witness to identify it. “I show you what has been

marked as Exhibit A for identification. Would you

please identify that exhibit?”

• Ask the witness questions about the exhibit to establish its relevance and other pertinent information.

• Offer the exhibit into evidence. “Your Honor, at

this time I ask that the court admit Exhibit A in

evidence as Exhibit 1.”

• The judge will ask opposing counsel if there is any

objection, rule on any objection (after argument),

and either admit the exhibit into evidence or not.

Rule 503. Use of a Writing to Refresh Recollection.

Use of a Writing to Refresh Recollection

If a witness is unable to recall information contained

in a document, the attorney, after requesting the

court’s permission and showing the document to op-

posing counsel, and if no objection is sustained, may

show a document to the witness to help the witness

remember the information without introducing the

document into evidence. The witness cannot read the

document to the court and must return the document

to counsel before answering the question.

Rule 504. Publishing Documents to the Court.

Publishing Documents to the Court

Once a document has been admitted in evidence,

counsel for either party may publish specific portions

of the document to the court by directing the judge’s

attention to the relevant portion and reading it aloud.

Opposing counsel may object only if counsel has mis-

read the document.

Example: “I direct the court’s attention to the second

page of Exhibit 1, at the top, where it says, ‘Dolores is

deceased.’”

Rule 505. Use of a Witness’ Affidavit to Impeach.

Use of a Witness’ Affidavit to Impeach

Unless prohibited by Rule 802, a witness may be

asked questions about their affidavit without intro-

ducing the document. If, after appropriate question-

ing, a witness refuses to admit having made a state-

ment contained within their affidavit, the attorney

may, in conformance with Rule 502, enter into

evidence the affidavit containing the statement for the

purpose of impeachment. An affidavit admitted into

evidence under this rule may be considered by the

court only for the limited purpose of impeachment;

the document admitted will be deemed to contain

only the alleged inconsistent statement(s).

Rule 601. General Rule of Competency.

General Rule of Competency

Every person is presumed to be competent to be a

witness.

Rule 602. Lack of Personal Knowledge.

Lack of Personal Knowledge

A witness may not testify to a matter unless the wit-

ness has personal knowledge of the matter; the witness

may not speculate. This rule is subject to the provisions of Rule

703, related to opinion testimony by expert witnesses.

Rule 603. Who May Impeach.

Who May Impeach

The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any

party, including the party calling the witness.

Rule 604. Evidence of Character and Conduct of a

Witness.

Evidence of Character and Conduct of a

Witness

(a) Opinion and Reputation Evidence of Character

The credibility of a witness may be attacked or

supported by evidence in the form of opinion or

reputation, but subject to these limitations:

(1) The evidence may refer only to character for

truthfulness or untruthfulness; and

(2) Evidence of truthful character is admissible

only after the character of the witness for

truthfulness has been attacked by opinion or

reputation evidence, or otherwise.

(b) Specific Instances of Conduct

Specific instances of the conduct of a witness may not

be offered for the purpose of attacking or supporting

the witness’ credibility, except on cross-examination

either (1) to rebut testimony regarding the witness’

character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or (2)

to impeach the witness’ testimony regarding the

truthfulness or untruthfulness of another witness

as to which character the witness being cross-

examined has testified.

Rule 605. Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime.

Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime

For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a wit-

ness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of

a crime shall be admitted, but only if the crime was a

felony or involved moral turpitude, regardless of pun-

ishment, and the court determines that the probative

value of this evidence as reliable proof outweighs its

prejudicial effect to a party.

Rule 606. Religious Beliefs or Opinions.

Religious Beliefs or Opinions

Evidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on

matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose

of showing that by reason of their nature the witness’ credibility is

impaired or enhanced.

Rule 701. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses.

Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses

If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the wit-

ness’ testimony in the form of opinions or inferences

is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a)

rationally based on the perception of the witness and

(b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’

testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.

Rule 702. Testimony by Experts.

Testimony by Experts

If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge

will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence

or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified

as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, back-

ground, training and/or education may testify in the

form of an opinion. Prior to offering such an opinion,

the witness must be deemed qualified by the court,

pursuant to a request by the attorney conducting the

examination.

Rule 703. Bases of Opinion Testimony by Experts.

Bases of Opinion Testimony by Experts

The facts or data upon which an expert bases an

opinion may be those perceived by or made known

to the expert at or before the trial. The facts or data

supporting an expert’s opinion need not be admissible

in evidence provided that they are of a type reasonably

relied upon by experts in the field in forming opinions

or inferences.

Rule 704. Opinion on the Ultimate Issue.

Opinion on the Ultimate Issue

(a) General Rule

Opinion or inference testimony otherwise admis-

sible is not objectionable because it embraces an is-

sue to be decided by the trier of fact.

(b) Opinion on Guilt or Innocence in a Criminal

Case

In a criminal case, an expert witness shall not

express an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of

the accused.

Rule 801. Definitions.

Definitions

The following definitions apply under this article:

(a) Statement. A “statement” is an oral or written

assertion or nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is

intended by the person as an assertion. (b) Declarant. A “declarant” is a person who makes a

statement.

(c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” is an out-of-court statement

offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Example of a statement which is offered for the

truth of the matter asserted:

“Ralph Malph told me the light was green” when

offered to prove that the traffic light was green.

Examples of statements not offered for the truth

of the matter asserted:

• The statement is offered to prove that the per-

son to whom it was addressed had notice or

knowledge of the contents of the statement (if

relevant). In this case, whether the statement

is true does not matter — what matters is that

the listener heard the statement.

• The statement is offered because the statement

itself constitutes a verbal act that is at issue,

such as defamation or fraud. In this case, you

may be even trying to show that the statement

is false.

• The statement is offered as circumstantial evi-

dence of the declarant’s state of mind (e.g., “I

am Napoleon” offered to show that the declar-

ant is insane).

NOTE: This list is by no means exhaustive.

(d) Statements which are deemed not to be hearsay

by rule. A statement is not hearsay if:

(1) Prior statement by witness. The declarant testi-

fies at the trial and is subject to cross-examina-

tion concerning the statement and the state-

ment is: (A) inconsistent with the declarant’s

testimony and was given under oath subject

to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or

other proceeding, or in an affidavit; (B) con-

sistent with the declarant’s testimony and is

offered to rebut an express or implied charge

against the declarant of recent fabrication or

improper influence or motive; or (C) one of

identification of a person made after perceiving

the person.

(2) Statement by a party-opponent. The state-

ment is offered against a party and is: (A) the

party’s own statement in either an individual

or representative capacity; (B) a statement of

which the party has manifested an adoption or

belief in its truth; (C) a statement by a person

authorized by the party to make a statement

concerning the subject; (D) a statement by the

party’s agent or servant concerning a matter

within the scope of the agency or employment

made during the existence of the relationship;

or (E) made by the party’s co-conspirator or

joint venturer during the cooperative effort

and in furtherance of its goal, if the existence

of the conspiracy or joint venture is shown by

evidence independent of the statement.

Rule 802. Hearsay Rule.

Hearsay Rule

Hearsay is not admissible, except as provided by these rules.

Rule 803. Hearsay Exceptions, Availability of Declarant Immaterial.

Hearsay Exceptions, Availability of Declarant Immaterial

The following are hearsay statements, but are not ex-

cluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant

is available as a witness:

(1) Present sense impression. A statement describing

or explaining an event or condition made while

the declarant was perceiving the event or condi-

tion, or immediately thereafter. Example: “She

said, ‘He sure is driving awfully fast.’”

(2) Spontaneous exclamation (also commonly re-

ferred to as “excited utterance”). A statement

made under the impulse of excitement or shock

if its utterance was spontaneous to a degree that

reasonably negated premeditation or possible fab-

rication and if it tended to qualify, characterize or

explain the underlying event. Example: “I can’t

believe I ate the whole thing!”

(3) Then-existing mental, emotional or physical

“conditions.” A statement of the declarant’s then-

existing state of mind, emotion, sensation or

physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive,

design, mental feeling, pain and bodily health),

but not including a statement of memory or be-

lief to prove the fact remembered or believed. Ex-

ample: “He said he had a terrible stomach ache.”

(4) Statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or

treatment. Statements made for the purpose of

medical diagnosis or treatment.

(5) Recorded recollection. A memorandum or record

concerning a matter about which a witness once

had knowledge but now has insufficient recollec

-tion to enable them to testify fully and accurately,

shown to have been made or adopted by the wit-

ness when the matter was fresh in their memory

and to reflect that knowledge correctly.

(6) Records of regularly conducted activity (the

“business records” rule). A memorandum, report,

record or data compilation, in any form, of acts,

events, conditions, opinions or diagnoses, made

by a person with knowledge:

(1) If kept in the course of a regularly conduct-

ed business activity; and

(2) If it was the usual course of business to

make the record at the time of the event

recorded or within a reasonable time there-

after;

(3) Unless the source of information or the

method or circumstances of preparation

indicate lack of trustworthiness of the re-

cords in question.

The term “business” as used in this paragraph

includes business, institution, association, pro-

fession, occupation and calling of every kind,

whether or not conducted for profit.

(7) Learned treatises. To the extent called to the at-

tention of an expert witness upon cross-examina-

tion or relied upon by the expert witness in direct

examination, statements contained in published

treatises, periodicals or pamphlets on a subject of

history, medicine or other science or art, estab-

lished as a reliable authority by the testimony or

admission of the witness or by other expert testi-

mony or by judicial notice.

(8) Reputation as to character. Reputation of a per-

son’s character among associates or in the com-

munity.

Rule 804. Hearsay Exceptions, Declarant Unavailable.

Hearsay Exceptions, Declarant Unavailable

(a) Definition of Unavailability

“Unavailability as a witness” includes situations in

which the declarant:

(1) Is exempted by ruling of the court on the ground

of privilege from testifying concerning the sub-

ject matter of the declarant’s statement; or

(2) Testifies to a lack of memory of the subject

matter of the declarant’s statement; or

(3) Is unable to be present or to testify at the trial

because of death or then-existing physical or

mental illness or infirmity.

A declarant is not unavailable as a witness if any of

the above is due to the wrongdoing of the proponent

of a statement for the purposes of preventing the

witness from attending or testifying.

(b) Hearsay exceptions

The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule

if the declarant is unavailable as a witness:

(1) Former testimony. Testimony given as a wit-

ness at another hearing of the same or a dif-

ferent proceeding, or in a deposition taken in

compliance with law in the course of the same

or another proceeding, if the party against

whom the testimony is now offered or, in a

civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in in-

terest, had an opportunity and similar motive

to develop the testimony by direct, cross- or

redirect examination.

(2) Statement under belief of impending death. In

a prosecution for homicide or in a civil action

or proceeding, a statement made by a declar-

ant while believing that the declarant’s death

was imminent, concerning the cause or cir-

cumstances of what the declarant believed to

be impending death.

(3) Statement against interest. A statement which

was at the time of its making so far contrary to

the declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary inter-

est, or so far tended to subject the declarant to

civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid

a claim by the declarant against another, that

a reasonable person in the declarant’s position

would not have made the statement unless be-

lieving it to be true. A statement tending to

expose the declarant to criminal liability and

offered to exculpate the accused is not admissi-

ble unless corroborating circumstances clearly

indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.

(4) Statement of personal or family history. (a)

A statement concerning the declarant’s own

birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, legitimacy,

relationship by blood, adoption or marriage,

ancestry or other similar fact of personal or

family history, even though the declarant had

no means of acquiring personal knowledge of

the matter stated; (b) a statement concerning

the foregoing matters, and death also, of an-

other person, if the declarant was related to the

other by blood, adoption or marriage or was so

intimately associated with the other’s family as

to be likely to have accurate information con-

cerning the matter declared.

(5) Declaration of deceased person. In any action

or other civil judicial proceeding, a declaration

of a deceased person shall not be inadmissible

in evidence as hearsay or as private conversa-

tion between husband and wife, as the case

may be, if the court finds that it was made in

good faith and upon the personal knowledge

of the declarant.

Rule 805. Hearsay within Hearsay.

Hearsay within Hearsay

Hearsay included within hearsay is admissible only if each part of the combined statement conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule provided in these rules.

Rule 901. Authority to object.

Authority to object

Objections to an opening statement must be made

and argued only by the attorney making the oppos-

ing opening statement. Objections during the direct

examination or cross-examination of a witness must

be made and argued only by the opposing attorney

cross-examining or examining the same witness. Ob-

jections regarding a closing argument must be made

and argued only by the attorney making the opposing

closing argument.

Rule 902. Procedure for Objections.

Procedure for Objections

The attorney authorized to object may object any time

any tournament rule or rule of procedure or evidence

is violated, except as noted in Rule 906.

Rule 903. Motion to Strike.

Motion to Strike

If an answer is unresponsive or otherwise objection-

able, the opposing counsel may ask the judge to strike

the objectionable testimony.

Rule 904. Other Motions.

Other Motions

Motions for directed verdict or dismissal or any other

motions not specified in the Simplified Rules of Evi-

dence and Procedure are not permitted.

Rule 905. Closing Arguments.

Closing Arguments

Closing arguments must be based on the evidence and

testimony presented during the trial.

Rule 906. Objections During Opening Statements and Closing Arguments

Objections During Opening Statements and Closing Arguments

No objections may be raised during the course of

opening statements or closing arguments. An objection

to an opening statement or to a closing argument may

be made immediately following the opening statement

or closing argument. A brief rebuttal or explanation is

permitted at the discretion of the judge.