Evidence

This exercise is designed to guide the student through the basics of the best evidence/original document rule under the federal rules. The exercise progresses logically through the rule. In order, it looks at the definition of “writing, recording, or photograph,” the concept of proving “content of a writing,” the definition of “original” and “duplicate,” proof of “collateral” matters, material in possession of the opposite party, computer printouts, compilations, secondary evidence (Is there a “second best evidence” rule?), and the division of function between the judge and jury.

This exercise deals with attack and support of the character of parties, victims, and witnesses; the use of reputation and opinion testimony as character evidence; and the admissibility of other crimes, wrongs, or acts as evidence falling outside the general ban on character evidence.

Students are given hypothetical fact situations and asked whether the testimony offered would be hearsay. The exercise provides practice in applying the concept that an utterance is hearsay if it is offered to show the truth of matters asserted therein.

This lesson explores the constitutional rules requiring confrontation of hearsay declarants in criminal prosecutions, with special emphasis on Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), and its progeny.

In this lesson, "The Definition of Hearsay and the Federal Rules Part I: Substantive Rules and Hearsay Dangers" the focus is on basic, non-controversial distinctions between hearsay and non-hearsay, which should be correct in any jurisdiction.

This lesson is part of another CALI lesson "The Definition of Hearsay and the Federal Rules." That lesson was divided into three parts for students who wish to cover the material in smaller modules. This lesson builds on material covered in the first module, "The Definition of Hearsay and the Federal Rules Part 1: Substantive Rules and Hearsay Dangers" and prepares the student for material covered in the final module, "The Definition of Hearsay and the Federal Rules Part 3: Hearsay Arguments."

This lesson is part of another CALI lesson "The Definition of Hearsay and the Federal Rules." That lesson was divided into three parts for students who wish to cover the material in smaller modules. This lesson builds on the material covered in the first two modules, "The Definition of Hearsay and the Federal Rules Part 1: Substantive Rules and Hearsay Dangers" and "The Definition of Hearsay and the Federal Rules Part 2: Statements and What They Assert."

This exercise applies hypotheticals to situations involving expert witnesses. Analysis relies primarily on the Federal Rules of Evidence. Expert testimony in both civil and criminal contexts is covered, as the exercise consists of two trials: the first is a civil case, the second a criminal prosecution.

This exercise is the counterpart of The Definition of Hearsay and the Federal Rules, which covers the definition of hearsay under Federal Rules of Evidence 801(a)-(c). The new exercise includes graphic reviews of each subsection of 801(d), and graphic illustrations of multiple hearsay, as well as interactive flowcharts for the subsections of 801(d). The program lends itself to use by students who either (i) want a relatively quick-review, with detailed work limited to those issues they find troublesome or (ii) want to review each relevant section of the rules in some detail.

This exercise covers these four, most commonly used, specific exceptions to the Hearsay rule: 1) Present sense impressions; 2) Excited utterances; 3) State of Mind; and 4) Business records. The student will be applying these four exceptions in the context of scenarios presenting hypotheticals. The student's goal in this lesson is to work with the four exceptions, to gain a basic understanding of them with a focus on those fundamentals and problem areas identified in the FRE's Advisory Committee's Notes, recent judicial decisions, and legal commentators.

This exercise is designed to introduce students to the broad range of exceptions available under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Using hypothetical fact situations, students are asked to assume the role of the judge and to rule on the applicability of Federal Rules of Evidence 803 and 804. The exercise requires students to know the proper application of each exception and to also understand the reason underlying each exception to the federal rules.

This lesson deals with the definition of hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence. It is a self-contained exercise that requires no prior knowledge or reference to outside material. It can be used as preparation before the topic of hearsay has been reached in the classroom, or as review after hearsay has been covered in class.

This exercise is based on a simulated trial in which the user is asked to rule on hearsay objections and to give reasons for the rulings.

This exercise begins with a transcript of the direct examination of a government witness in a criminal action. The direct examination will be followed by a crossexamination, and the student is asked to rule on objections to impeachment questions by the crossexaminer. The lesson focuses on permissible and impermissible impeachment concepts under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The exercise was composed under a grant from the Federal Judicial Center as part of its training program for incoming federal judges.

This lesson is an analytical guide to the study of two major aspects of evidence: relevance and hearsay. The vehicle used by this guide is a step by step, nine question analysis, applicable to any admissibility of evidence problem. This lesson should help one determine whether any item of evidence is admissible under the rules of evidence pertaining to relevance and hearsay. The answers to the first four questions determine whether any item of proffered evidence is admissible under the two components of relevancy: logical and legal relevancy.

Articles II through X of the Federal Rules set out substantive evidentiary tests and standards. However, a student's understanding of those tests and standards is incomplete unless the student appreciates the procedural framework within which those provisions operate. Federal Rules 104(a) and 104(b) are the fulcrum of that framework. Those subdivisions codify the distinction between competence and conditional relevance issues.

This lesson introduces the student to the doctrine and processes involved in interpreting state and federal statutes. Statutes are a critical part of every substantive area of the law, so this is important background for every student, legal professional, lawyer and judge.

Students are placed in the role of judge and asked to rule on objections. The case is a civil action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when an automobile driven by Plaintiff was involved in an intersection collision with an automobile driven by Defendant.