Table of Contents -- Evidence: A Structured Approach

More documents

Recommendations

Info

xvi Contents 2. Factors Affecting the Witness’s Opportunity to Perceive Accurately 426 3. Factors Affecting the Witness’s Capacity to Perceive Accurately 426 4. Factors Affecting the Witness’s Capacity to Recollect Accurately 427 5. Factors Affecting the Witness’s Capacity to Narrate Accurately and Comprehensibly 428 6. Appearance and Status Factors 428 7. Demeanor 429 8. Plausibility of the Witness’s Testimony 429 9. Illustration 429 E. Witness’s Character 433 1. Introduction 433 2. Reputation or Opinion Concerning Truthfulness 435 a. Reputation and Opinion 435 b. Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness 436 c. Evidence of Truthfulness Admissible Only after Attack on Character for Truthfulness 436 3. Conduct Probative of Truthfulness 437 a. Rationale for Admitting Evidence of Witness Conduct Probative of Truthfulness 438 b. Extrinsic Evidence Inadmissible 439 c. Discretion to Admit Specific Instances Probative of Truthfulness or Untruthfulness 439 4. Conviction of Crime 441 a. Rationale for Admitting Conviction Evidence to Impeach 442 b. Scope of Rule 609 443 c. Rule 609(a)—General Rule 443 d. Rule 609(b)—Old Convictions 445 e. Rule 609(c)—Effect of Pardon, Annulment, or Certificate of Rehabilitation 446 f. Rule 609(d)—Juvenile Adjudications 446 g. Rule 609(e)—Pendency of Appeal 447 h. Preserving the Right to Appeal under Rule 609 447 Luce v. United States 447 5. Religious Beliefs or Opinions 450 F. Bias, Motive, and Interest 451 1. Effects of Bias 451 2. Proving Bias 452 3. Admissibility of Bias Evidence 452 4. Admitting Extrinsic Evidence of a Witness’s Prior Statements Revealing Bias 453 United States v. Abel 454
Contents xvii G. Impeachment by Contradiction 458 1. Introduction 458 2. Common Law Rule Restricting Impeachment by Contradiction 459 3. Modern Treatment of the Rule 462 4. Overlap with Other Impeachment Methods 463 H. Prior Statements of Witnesses 465 1. Prior Inconsistent Statements 465 a. Introduction 465 b. Substantive Use of Prior Inconsistent Statements 466 United States v. Owens 467 c. Impeachment Use of Prior Inconsistent Statements 469 d. A Note About Limited Admissibility 472 2. Prior Consistent Statements 475 a. Introduction 475 b. Foundation for Admission of Prior Consistent Statements 477 Tome v. United States 478 c. Purposes for Which Prior Consistent Statements May Be Offered; Comparing Prior Consistent and Prior Inconsistent Statements 481 I. Transcript Exercise: Emphasis on Witness Impeachment 484 Chapter 7: Lay and Expert Opinion Evidence 491 A. Introduction 491 B. Lay Opinion 492 1. Function of Rule 701: Requiring the Witness to Be More Specific 492 2. Who May Give Lay Opinions 492 3. What Is a Proper Basis for Lay Opinion Testimony 493 4. When Is Lay Opinion “Helpful” 494 C. Expert Opinion 498 1. Introduction 498 2. Expert Testimony Must “Assist the Trier of Fact” 499 3. Expert Witnesses Must Be Qualified 500 4. Expert Testimony Must Be Reliable: The Daubert Decision 502 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 503 5. Expert Testimony Must Be Reliable: The Kumho Tire Decision 505 6. Expert Testimony Must Be Reliable: Problems Applying Daubert/Kumho Tire 506 United States v. Llera Plaza 506 Pipitone v. Biomatrix, Inc. 514
Page 1 and 2: CONTENTS Preface xxi Chapter 1: The
Page 3 and 4: Contents xi 4. Comparing the Court
Page 5 and 6: Contents xiii e. Comparison to Part
Page 7: Contents xv 4. Meaning of “Neglig
Page 11: Contents xix Monica S. Lewinsky, Te

Table of Contents -- Evidence: A Structured Approach

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?