Impeachment methods - Criminal conviction distinctions
criminal convictions
Impeachment methods
Best Evidence Rule
Duplicate is inadmissible if:
Privileges (9)
Judge/ preliminary questions of comp of evidence
cannot summarize evidence/common to jury on:
can’t consider hearsay re: conspiracy
Challenges to evidence ruling - Harmless error rule
Fl uses to determine if improperly admitted in crim cases.
Verdict reversed unless state proves BRD that no reasonable possiblity error affect verdict in order to vaoid new
Judicial notice - Rules for court
court must take JD of:
may take notice of:
not required to care about earlier court’s take on a particular matter
Judicial notice - Rules for jury
Permits court to instruct jury re: judicially noticed matter - civ and crim
Must instruct jury re: judicially noticed fact that’s element of a crime
Burdens of evidence
Production - produce legally sufficient evidence for each element of claim (RP standard)
Persusasion - civil: POE (sometimes C&C), crim: BRD
Presumptions
Presumption rebuttable unless conclusive under law from whic hit arises
civil cases - every rebuttable presumption either:
Destruction of evidence - if destroyed by party it goes against, presumpio that 1) was unfavorable, 2) was intentional, 3) was relevant
Character evidence - V’s character
Specific acts
Civil - allowed when essnetial element of claim/defense
crim - inadmissiable to show D’s criminal propensity, prior specific acts can be used when character essential element of crime - D can offer prior acts inconsistent with crime
Specific acts - MIMic
similar fact evidence admissible under Willimas when relevant to prove MIMIC
must have identifiable poitns of similarty estabslihing “sufficiently unique pattern of crim activity”
State must give 10 days notice to D if using above
Reverse Williams rule (was a different guy) - allowed with same similarity standard, no prior notice
Witnesses
judge - can’t testify
juror - limited circumstances
child - no age req, can he/she tell difference between truth and lie and understand need to tell truth? BUT
court can set conditions for under 18 re: child abuse neglgect, sex abuse V, W to sex offense against anohter minor. Then need advocate to rep in court
Impeachment - W’s character for truthfulness
can’t bolster (beforehand)
reputation evidence only, no specific acts (not even on cross)
past convictions
Ways to impeach
Rehab of W
Qualified experts
can state opinion about whether D had req mental state of any element of crime/defense
cannot state opinion re: crimnal capacity/whether mental state with legal definition exists
Qualified experts - cross examining
Opposing party can examine W about underlying fcats/data for opinon - will be inadmissible if establsihes lack of sufficient basis
can use formal writing on subject to corss examine if iether W or court recgonizes it as authorizataive, but can’t bolster
Authentication
Best evidence rule
duplicate inadmissible if doc is
privileges - general exception
All privileges except A/C and clergy can be overcome if related to abuse of children, disabled, elderly
Hearsay
offered to prove truth of matter asserted
Declarant must be person
statement can be oral, written, assertive nonverbal
Non-hearsay - Prior statements
prior statements - D must be present at trial