Cartoons, -> Evidence Cartoons
In Re Petition of Sheila Roberts Ford cartoons image illustration picture
In Re Petition of Sheila Roberts Ford

Description:
Rule 27, authorize pre-complaint discovery, file a verified complaint.

Select Usage (details) :



Cummings v. General Motors Corp. cartoons image illustration picture
Cummings v. General Motors Corp.

Description:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a), automatically disclose all documents and tangible evidence on which it intends to rely at trial, dislosure, motion to compel discovery, protective order.

Select Usage (details) :



Polycast Technology Corp. v. Uniroyal, Inc. cartoons image illustration picture
Polycast Technology Corp. v. Uniroyal, Inc.

Description:
parties may depose non-party witnesses, deposition, testimony, protective order.

Select Usage (details) :



Wilson v. Olathe Bank cartoons image illustration picture
Wilson v. Olathe Bank

Description:
Movants, protective order, federal rule of civil procedure 30(b)(2), record a deposition by nonstenographic means and is given the choice of the method of recording, absent annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, and undue burden or expense.

Select Usage (details) :



In Re Auction Houses Antitrust Litigation cartoons image illustration picture
In Re Auction Houses Antitrust Litigation

Description:
A contract may form the basis of a discovery obligation under the federal rules of civil procedure, interrogatory.

Select Usage (details) :



Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC cartoons image illustration picture
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC

Description:
Expense and burden of certain discovery requests may be shifted to the requesting party, discoverable matter includes both paper and electronic documents.

Select Usage (details) :



Battle v. Memorial Hospital at Gulfport cartoons image illustration picture
Battle v. Memorial Hospital at Gulfport

Description:
Deposition testimony of an unavailable witness may be introduced at trial, continuance, unavailability.

Select Usage (details) :



Fruit of the Poisonous Tree cartoons image illustration picture
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

Description:
When a vehicle is stopped at a traffic stop, the passenger as well as the driver is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment for search and seizure.

Select Usage (details) :



res ipsa loquitur cartoons image illustration picture
res ipsa loquitur

Description:
States v. Lourdes Hospital; doctrine of res ipsa loquitor; factfinder; draw an inference of negligence; kind that ordinarily does not occur absent negligence.

Select Usage (details) :



Tanner v. United States cartoons image illustration picture
Tanner v. United States

Description:
Juror testimony may not be used to impeach verdict unless testimony relates to outside influence that affected jury; impeachment of verdict; voir dire.

Select Usage (details) :



United States v. James cartoons image illustration picture
United States v. James

Description:
Evidence that directly corroborates witness credibility is admissible, even if evidence relates to facts not known to witness; harmless error; indian country; material evidence; relevant evidence.

Select Usage (details) :



Cox v. State cartoons image illustration picture
Cox v. State

Description:
Evidence that is relevant only if another fact is proven will be admitted if court concludes that reasonable jury could make the required finding of fact with the evidence before it.

Select Usage (details) :



State v. Bocharski cartoons image illustration picture
State v. Bocharski

Description:
Relevant evidence should not be admitted if the only effect of evidence would be to inflame jury; felony murder rule.

Select Usage (details) :



United States v. James cartoons image illustration picture
United States v. James

Description:
Evidence that is unfairly prejudicial to either party should be excluded; aiding and abetting; manslaughter.

Select Usage (details) :



United States v. Myers cartoons image illustration picture
United States v. Myers

Description:
Evidence of flight is admissible to show consciousness of guilt only if sufficient to support inferences from defendant behavior to the defendant flight, to consciousness of guilt of crime charged, to actual guilt. circumstantial evidence.

Select Usage (details) :



People v. Collins cartoons image illustration picture
People v. Collins

Description:
Statistical evidence will not be admitted unless it has a foundation in evidence and statistical theory, and it must not distract the jury from its duty to weigh the evidence on the issue of guilt. Foundational evidence.

Select Usage (details) :



United States v. Jackson cartoons image illustration picture
United States v. Jackson

Description:
Exclusion of evidence may be conditioned on stipulation that acknowledges the truth of part of excluded evidence; probative value.

Select Usage (details) :



Old Chief v. United States cartoons image illustration picture
Old Chief v. United States

Description:
Court abuses its discretion if it rejects offer to stipulate to prior conviction when prior conviction is element of offense charged.

Select Usage (details) :



Tuer v. McDonald cartoons image illustration picture
Tuer v. McDonald

Description:
Evidence of remedial measures taken after allegedly negligent act is not admissible to prove negligence; impeachment motion in limine.

Select Usage (details) :



Bankcard America, Inc. v. Universal Bancard Systems, Inc. cartoons image illustration picture
Bankcard America, Inc. v. Universal Bancard Systems, Inc.

Description:
Evidence regarding settlement negotiations is admissible, but only for purposes other than showing liability.

Select Usage (details) :



Williams v. McCoy cartoons image illustration picture
Williams v. McCoy

Description:
Evidence of liability insurance is inadmissible only when evidence is offered to show that the insured acted negligently or wrongfully; direct contempt.

Select Usage (details) :



United States v. Biaggi cartoons image illustration picture
United States v. Biaggi

Description:
Rejected offer of immunity in exchange for testimony is admissible to show innocent state of mind.

Select Usage (details) :



People v. Zackowitz cartoons image illustration picture
People v. Zackowitz

Description:
Evidence of particular character trait is inadmissible to show that person acted in conformity with that trait. Character evidence.

Select Usage (details) :



United States v. Trenkler cartoons image illustration picture
United States v. Trenkler

Description:
Modus operandi. Evidence of other criminal acts is admissible to show identity of person who committed acts if there is high degree of similarity between the other act and charged crime. Expert witness.

Select Usage (details) :



United States v. Stevens cartoons image illustration picture
United States v. Stevens

Description:
Evidence that defendant did not commit similar crimes may be used to show that defendant did not commit the crime charged. Harmless error.

Select Usage (details) :



Rex v. Smith cartoons image illustration picture
Rex v. Smith

Description:
Evidence of similar acts is admissible to show plan or the lack of accident.

Select Usage (details) :



Huddleston v. United States cartoons image illustration picture
Huddleston v. United States

Description:
Evidence of similar acts may be admitted if there is sufficient evidence to support finding by jury that defendant committed similar acts. Indirect evidence.

Select Usage (details) :



Lannan v. State cartoons image illustration picture
Lannan v. State

Description:
Priors; prior convictions; prior crimes; evidence of prior sexual conduct is inadmissible to prove that defendant had tendency to commit sexual assault.

Select Usage (details) :



State v. Kirsch cartoons image illustration picture
State v. Kirsch

Description:
Evidence of other acts or crimes is not admissible to show predilection for committing certain crime. Intent; motive.

Select Usage (details) :



United States v. Guardia cartoons image illustration picture
United States v. Guardia

Description:
Evidence of other sexual conduct will be admitted only if probative value of evidence outweighs danger of undue prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading jury, undue delay, waste of time, needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Select Usage (details) :



United States v. Mound cartoons image illustration picture
United States v. Mound

Description:
Rule 413 of Federal Rules of Evidence does not violate due process or Equal Protection Clause. equal protection; suspect class; suspect classification.

Select Usage (details) :



Michelson v. United States cartoons image illustration picture
Michelson v. United States

Description:
Character evidence is evidence of witness knowledge of defendant reputation, not evidence regarding specific acts. Reputation evidence.

Select Usage (details) :



Perrin v. Anderson cartoons image illustration picture
Perrin v. Anderson

Description:
Defendant in civil action may offer evidence of victim's character if central issue in civil action is criminal in nature, but he may not introduce evidence regarding specific acts. Circumstantial evidence.

Select Usage (details) :



Securities and Exchange Commission v. Towers Financial Corp. cartoons image illustration picture
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Towers Financial Corp.

Description:
The Federal Rules of Evidence prohibit defendant in civil action from introducing evidence of his or her good character. Ponzi scheme.

Select Usage (details) :



Halloran v. Virginia Chemicals Inc. cartoons image illustration picture
Halloran v. Virginia Chemicals Inc.

Description:
Evidence of a person's habit is admissible to show that he or she acted according to habit on a particular occasion; habit evidence.

Select Usage (details) :



United States v. Brewer cartoons image illustration picture
United States v. Brewer

Description:
Before evidence of prior felony convictions may be admitted for impeachment purposes, the court must determine whether probative value of admitting convictions outweighs prejudicial effect to defendant. Impeach; impeachment; suppress evidence.

Select Usage (details) :



United States v. Brackeen cartoons image illustration picture
United States v. Brackeen

Description:
For purposes of rule allowing admissionof evidence of witness conviction of crime involving dishonesty or false statements, bank robbery is not per se crime of dishonesty. Crimen falsi.

Select Usage (details) :



Luce v. United States cartoons image illustration picture
Luce v. United States

Description:
Defendant who does not testify may not seek appellate review of ruling that allows admission of impeachment evidence.

Select Usage (details) :



Ohler v. United States cartoons image illustration picture
Ohler v. United States

Description:
Party who introduces evidence waives right to seek appellate review of admissibility of that evidence. Direct examination.

Select Usage (details) :



People v. Abbot cartoons image illustration picture
People v. Abbot

Description:
Evidence that prosecutrix in rape action had prior sexual activities with men is relevant to show consent. Rape shield law.

Select Usage (details) :



State v. Sibley cartoons image illustration picture
State v. Sibley

Description:
Evidence of a man's bad character and poor reputation for chastity is inadmissible in rape prosecution to impeach character of witness.

Select Usage (details) :



State v. Smith cartoons image illustration picture
State v. Smith

Description:
Evidence that victim has made prior false allegations of sexual assault is not barred by rape shield law. Recant.

Select Usage (details) :



Olden v. Kentucky cartoons image illustration picture
Olden v. Kentucky

Description:
Rape shield laws are subject to defendant's Sixth Amendment right to cross examine the accuser for bias; confrontation clause; motion in limine.

Select Usage (details) :



Boggs v. Collins cartoons image illustration picture
Boggs v. Collins

Description:
Sixth Amendment does not require that defendant be allowed to examine witness on prior conduct as means to make general attack on witness credibility.

Select Usage (details) :



Stephens v. Miller cartoons image illustration picture
Stephens v. Miller

Description:
Defendant's right to testify in his or her own defense is not absolute and may be limited to protect other legitimate interests. Res gestae.

Select Usage (details) :



United States v. Knox cartoons image illustration picture
United States v. Knox

Description:
Evidence of prior sexual behavior is not admissible to show mistake regarding consent if there is no real possibility that there was such a mistake. Relevant.

Select Usage (details) :



Rex v. Raleigh cartoons image illustration picture
Rex v. Raleigh

Description:
Hearsay statements are admissible in prosecution for treason, and declarant may not testify.

Select Usage (details) :



Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival and Research Center, Inc. cartoons image illustration picture
Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival and Research Center, Inc.

Description:
Statements made by agent or employee that concern matter within the scope of agency or employment and that are made during the existence of relationship are admissible, even if those statements are not made to third parties.

Select Usage (details) :



Bourjaily v. United States cartoons image illustration picture
Bourjaily v. United States

Description:
Statements made by co conspirators during course of conspiracy are admissible if existence of conspiracy is proven by preponderance of evidence, which may include statements themselves.

Select Usage (details) :



United States v. Barrett cartoons image illustration picture
United States v. Barrett

Description:
Prior inconsistent statements of witness are admissible to impeach the credibility of that witness.

Select Usage (details) :



United States v. Ince cartoons image illustration picture
United States v. Ince

Description:
Hearsay; hearsay exception; prior inconsistent statements; inadmissible confession; past recollection recorded.

Select Usage (details) :



Fletcher v. Weir cartoons image illustration picture
Fletcher v. Weir

Description:
Defendant may be cross examined about his or her post arrest silence if no Miranda warnings were given. Habeas corpus; miranda rule.

Select Usage (details) :



Tome v. United States cartoons image illustration picture
Tome v. United States

Description:
Prior consistent statements are admissible to rebut charge of fabrication only if consistent statements were made before motive to fabricate arose.

Select Usage (details) :



Commonwealth v. Weichell cartoons image illustration picture
Commonwealth v. Weichell

Description:
The record of witness out of court description of person is admissible. Identikit.

Select Usage (details) :



United States v. Owens cartoons image illustration picture
United States v. Owens

Description:
Witness is subject to cross examination concerning statement if he or she is placed on witness stand, under oath, and responds willingly to questions. Confrontation clause.

Select Usage (details) :



United States v. DiNapoli cartoons image illustration picture
United States v. DiNapoli

Description:
Test for whether party has same motive in developing evidence is not only whether questioner was on same side of same issue in both proceedings, but also whether questioner had substantially similar interest. RICO.

Select Usage (details) :



Lloyd v. American Export Lines, Inc. cartoons image illustration picture
Lloyd v. American Export Lines, Inc.

Description:
Testimony at prior trial or hearing will be admissible if party with like motive to cross examine the witness as party in the present proceeding would have been given adequate opportunity to cross examine the witness. Jones Act.

Select Usage (details) :



Williamson v. United States cartoons image illustration picture
Williamson v. United States

Description:
Parts of out of court statement that do not inculpate the declarant are not admissible as statements against interest. Exculpatory evidence; inculpatory evidence; use immunity.

Select Usage (details) :



Shepard v. United States cartoons image illustration picture
Shepard v. United States

Description:
In order to be admissible as dying declaration, statement must have been made while declarant had no hope of recovery and knew that death was imminent.

Select Usage (details) :



United States v. Houlihan cartoons image illustration picture
United States v. Houlihan

Description:
Defendant waives right to object on Confrontation Clause grounds to admission of unavailable witness out of court statements if defendant caused potential witness unavailability by wrongful act done with intention of preventing witness testifying.

Select Usage (details) :



Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon cartoons image illustration picture
Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon

Description:
Out of court statements that express declarants present intention are admissible to prove what that intention was. Inference.

Select Usage (details) :



United States v. Iron Shell cartoons image illustration picture
United States v. Iron Shell

Description:
Admission of out of court statement under exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment depends on if declarant's motive in making statement was consistent with purpose of exception and if reasonable for physician to rely.

Select Usage (details) :



Johnson v. State cartoons image illustration picture
Johnson v. State

Description:
In order for recording of past recollection to be admissible, the witness whose recollection is refreshed must testify that recording is accurate. Capital offense.

Select Usage (details) :



Palmer v. Hoffman cartoons image illustration picture
Palmer v. Hoffman

Description:
Report of accident is not made in regular course of business, and so is not admissible under business records exception to hearsay rule.

Select Usage (details) :



United States v. Vigneau cartoons image illustration picture
United States v. Vigneau

Description:
Business records exception does not include statements in record that were made by someone not part of business if those statements are offered for their truth. Double hearsay; laundering redaction.

Select Usage (details) :



Beech Aircraft Corporation v. Rainey cartoons image illustration picture
Beech Aircraft Corporation v. Rainey

Description:
Investigatory reports are not inadmissible solely because they set out conclusion or opinion.

Select Usage (details) :



Dallas County v. Commercial Union Assurance Company cartoons image illustration picture
Dallas County v. Commercial Union Assurance Company

Description:
Ancient document. Hearsay evidence may be admissible if there is no other way of proving facts in hearsay statement and if there are circumstances that show evidence is trustworthy enough without need for cross examination.

Select Usage (details) :



United States v. Laster cartoons image illustration picture
United States v. Laster

Description:
Residuary hearsay exception allows admission of hearsay if there is no indication that evidence is not reliable, if hearsay is more probative on point for which it is offered than any other evidence, and if its admission serves best interests of justice.

Select Usage (details) :



Mattox v. United States cartoons image illustration picture
Mattox v. United States

Description:
Defendant rights under confrontation clause are satisfied if defendant has once had opportunity to see a witness face to face and subject that witness to cross examination. Confrontation clause.

Select Usage (details) :



Idaho v. Wright cartoons image illustration picture
Idaho v. Wright

Description:
Trustworthiness of an out of court statement must be determined based on totality of circumstances that surrounded making of statement, without considering facts that may corroborate statement. Bootstrap.

Select Usage (details) :



White v. Illinois cartoons image illustration picture
White v. Illinois

Description:
Excited utterance. Confrontation Clause does not require a showing of necessity before statements may be admitted under a hearsay exception.

Select Usage (details) :



Lilly v. Virginia cartoons image illustration picture
Lilly v. Virginia

Description:
A hearsay exception is regarded as firmly rooted if, in light of longstanding legislative and judicial experience, the admission of virtually any evidence under that exception comports with substance of Confrontation Clause.

Select Usage (details) :



Bruton v. United States cartoons image illustration picture
Bruton v. United States

Description:
Admission of joint defendants' confession violates other defendants rights under Confrontation Clause, even if limiting instruction is given to jury. Cautionary instruction.

Select Usage (details) :



Cruz v. New York cartoons image illustration picture
Cruz v. New York

Description:
Confessions of nontestifying co-defendants are inadmissible, even if they interlock with defendants own confession.

Select Usage (details) :



Gray v. Maryland cartoons image illustration picture
Gray v. Maryland

Description:
Redacted confession of co-defendant that replaces defendant's name with an obvious indication of deletion is inadmissible. Redaction.

Select Usage (details) :



Chambers v. Mississippi cartoons image illustration picture
Chambers v. Mississippi

Description:
State evidentiary rules may not be applied in such a manner as to deny a defendant right to present witnesses in his own defense.

Select Usage (details) :



United States v. Figueroa-Lopez cartoons image illustration picture
United States v. Figueroa-Lopez

Description:
Witness may not give opinion testimony about matters outside the realm of common knowledge unless that witness is qualified as an expert. Expert witness.

Select Usage (details) :



United States v. Johnson cartoons image illustration picture
United States v. Johnson

Description:
Witness may qualify as expert if witness expertise is derived entirely from experience in a particular area. Expert witness qualifications.

Select Usage (details) :



Jinro America Inc. v. Secure Investments, Inc. cartoons image illustration picture
Jinro America Inc. v. Secure Investments, Inc.

Description:
Expert testimony must be confined to area of witness expertise. Bifurcated trial.

Select Usage (details) :



Hygh v. Jacobs cartoons image illustration picture
Hygh v. Jacobs

Description:
Expert testimony is not allowed on legal conclusions that are to be reached by jury.

Select Usage (details) :



State v. Batangan cartoons image illustration picture
State v. Batangan

Description:
Expert may not offer opinion that witness is telling truth. Credibility.

Select Usage (details) :



United States v. Hines cartoons image illustration picture
United States v. Hines

Description:
Expert testimony may be introduced on matters ordinarily within understanding of jury if the inferences jury may draw on subject could be erroneous.

Select Usage (details) :



In Re Melton cartoons image illustration picture
In Re Melton

Description:
Expert opinions may be based on hearsay that meets minimum standards of reliability. Civil commitment.

Select Usage (details) :



Frye v. United States cartoons image illustration picture
Frye v. United States

Description:
Expert opinion that is based on scientific principle will be admitted only if scientific principle is sufficiently established so that it has gained general acceptance in its particular field. Daubert; frye test; polygraph.

Select Usage (details) :



Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. cartoons image illustration picture
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Description:
General acceptance is not precondition to admissibility of scientific evidence as long as expert testimony rests on reliable foundation and is relevant to issues in the case.

Select Usage (details) :



Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. cartoons image illustration picture
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Description:
Expert testimony must reflect scientific knowledge must be relevant to proposing party's case. Daubert test.

Select Usage (details) :



United States v. Crumby cartoons image illustration picture
United States v. Crumby

Description:
Polygraph evidence will be admitted for limited purpose of impeaching or corroborating credibility of defendant who testifies.

Select Usage (details) :



United States v. Scheffer cartoons image illustration picture
United States v. Scheffer

Description:
Compulsory Process Clause does not guarantee right to present polygraph evidence.

Select Usage (details) :



Kumho Tire Company v. Carmichael cartoons image illustration picture
Kumho Tire Company v. Carmichael

Description:
All expert testimony must be evaluated to determine if it has connection to relevant inquiry and reliable basis in knowledge and experience of relevant discipline.

Select Usage (details) :



State v. Kinney cartoons image illustration picture
State v. Kinney

Description:
Trial courts may admit expert testimony if reliability of evidence equals that of other technical evidence held to be admissible and evaluation of other courts allowing admission of evidence is complete and persuasive. Judicial notice; plain error.

Select Usage (details) :



United States v. Stelmokas cartoons image illustration picture
United States v. Stelmokas

Description:
Authentication. Requirement that document be authenticated before it may be admitted into evidence is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support finding that document is what its proponent claims it to be. Chain of custody.

Select Usage (details) :



People v. Lynes cartoons image illustration picture
People v. Lynes

Description:
Authentication. Evidence may be authenticated by circumstances that permit drawing of inferences that evidence is what proponent claims. Post hoc.

Select Usage (details) :



Simms v. Dixon cartoons image illustration picture
Simms v. Dixon

Description:
Foundation; authentication. Photograph is authenticated for evidentiary purposes if witness with knowledge of facts is able to testify that photograph is correct portrayal of those facts. Foundation.

Select Usage (details) :



Wagner v. State cartoons image illustration picture
Wagner v. State

Description:
Silent witness theory. Pictorial evidence is admissible if there is an adequate foundation attesting to accuracy of process that produced image.

Select Usage (details) :



Seiler v. Lucasfilm cartoons image illustration picture
Seiler v. Lucasfilm

Description:
Best evidence rule. When contents of written document or equivalent are at issue, contents must be proved by original document unless original is unavailable for some reason that is not fault of proponent. Infringement.

Select Usage (details) :



Jaffee v. Redmond cartoons image illustration picture
Jaffee v. Redmond

Description:
Evidentiary privileges are justified by an imperative need for confidence and trust in relationship, if that privilege also will serve public ends. Psychotherapist patient privelege.

Select Usage (details) :



Morales v. Portuondo cartoons image illustration picture
Morales v. Portuondo

Description:
Assertion of evidentiary privilege may not bar admission of evidence if exclusion of otherwise privileged evidence would be fundamentally unfair. Habeas corpus.

Select Usage (details) :



People v. Gionis cartoons image illustration picture
People v. Gionis

Description:
The attorney client privilege applies only to statements made to attorney in his or her professional capacity, for purpose of seeking legal advice. Show cause order.

Select Usage (details) :



Blackmon v. State cartoons image illustration picture
Blackmon v. State

Description:
Attorney client privilege. In order for statement to attorney to be confidential, client must reasonably intend that communication be confidential.

Select Usage (details) :



In Re Osterhoudt cartoons image illustration picture
In Re Osterhoudt

Description:
Attorney client privilege. Identity of attorney's client and nature of any fee agreement are not protected by attorney client privilege, unless disclosure of information would implicate client in criminal activity for which legal advice was sought.

Select Usage (details) :



Swidler and Berlin v. United States cartoons image illustration picture
Swidler and Berlin v. United States

Description:
Attorney client privilege survives death of client. Independent counsel.

Select Usage (details) :



United States v. Zolin cartoons image illustration picture
United States v. Zolin

Description:
Court should undertake in camera review of evidence to determine if crime fraud exception will bar claim of attorney client privilege only if there is factual showing adequate to support good faith belief that review may reveal evidence of fraud.

Select Usage (details) :



Commonwealth v. Stockhammer cartoons image illustration picture
Commonwealth v. Stockhammer

Description:
When defendant requests access to privileged records, counsel for defendant should be allowed to examine records in order to determine what is necessary for defense.

Select Usage (details) :



In Re Lindsey cartoons image illustration picture
In Re Lindsey

Description:
Attorney client privilege does not prevent government lawyers from testifying about possible commission of crimes by other government officials.

Select Usage (details) :



Fisher v. United States cartoons image illustration picture
Fisher v. United States

Description:
Client documents in possession of lawyer are protected by attorney client privilege only if Fifth Amendment privilege would have protected while in client's possession and documents given to lawyer for purpose of obtaining legal advice.

Select Usage (details) :



United States v. Doe cartoons image illustration picture
United States v. Doe

Description:
If act of producing documents would be incriminating, production of those documents cannot be compelled without statutory grant of use immunity.

Select Usage (details) :



United States v. Hubbell cartoons image illustration picture
United States v. Hubbell

Description:
Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination protects witness from being compelled to answer questions about existence of sources of potentially incriminating evidence and from subpoena seeking discovery. Transactional immunity.

Select Usage (details) :



Tilton v. Beecher cartoons image illustration picture
Tilton v. Beecher

Description:
The marital privilege protects the marriage relationship.

Select Usage (details) :



Trammel v. United States cartoons image illustration picture
Trammel v. United States

Description:
Witness may be neither compelled to testify nor barred from testifying against his or her spouse. Privilege for marital communications; marital privilege.

Select Usage (details) :



United States v. Rakes cartoons image illustration picture
United States v. Rakes

Description:
privilege for marital communications permits individual to refuse to testify, and to prevent spouse or former spouse from testifying, regarding any confidential communication made by individual to spouse during the of marriage. Extortion misprison.

Select Usage (details) :



In Re Grand Jury Proceedings cartoons image illustration picture
In Re Grand Jury Proceedings

Description:
There is no testimonial privilege for parent child communications. Motion to quash.

Select Usage (details) :



Shepard v. United States cartoons image illustration picture
Shepard v. United States

Description:
Declaration of person's state of mind is inadmissible to prove the actions of someone other than the declarant.

Select Usage (details) :



Demonstrative Evidence cartoons image illustration picture
Demonstrative Evidence

Description:
Commonwealth v. Serge; computer-generated animation is admissible if fair and accurate representation of evidence, relevant under the rules of evidence, and its probative value is not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice; undue prejudice.

Select Usage (details) :



Prior Bad Acts Are Relevant Evidence cartoons image illustration picture
Prior Bad Acts Are Relevant Evidence

Description:
United States v. DeGeorge; inextricably intertwined with a charged offense; may be admitted if constitutes a part of the transaction that serves as basis for criminal charge, or for coherent and comprehensive story regarding commission of crime.

Select Usage (details) :



Character Evidence cartoons image illustration picture
Character Evidence

Description:
United States v. Whitmore; Rule 608(a); party may introduce reputation or opinion evidence of a witness's character for truthfulness only if character witness is acquainted with witness, his community, and circles in which he has moved.

Select Usage (details) :



Unavailable Witness Hearsay cartoons image illustration picture
Unavailable Witness Hearsay

Description:
United States v. Gray; killing witnesses; a defendant who wrongfully and intentionally renders a declarant unavailable as a witness in any proceeding forfeits the right to exclude, on hearsay grounds, the declarant's statements.

Select Usage (details) :



Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause cartoons image illustration picture
Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause

Description:
Crawford v. Washington; for out-of-court statement to be admitted into evidence, the witness must be unavailable and the defendant must have had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.

Select Usage (details) :



Out of Court Statements to Police Officer cartoons image illustration picture
Out of Court Statements to Police Officer

Description:
Davis v. Washington Hammon v. Indiana; admissibility depends on whether testimonial; statements to police are non-testimonial if primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable the police to meet an ongoing emergency.

Select Usage (details) :



Specialized Knowledge is Basis for Expert Testimony cartoons image illustration picture
Specialized Knowledge is Basis for Expert Testimony

Description:
United States v. Ganier; computer software experience provides expert, not lay, testimony.

Select Usage (details) :



Telephone Call As Admissable Evidence cartoons image illustration picture
Telephone Call As Admissable Evidence

Description:
State v. Small; a voice over the telephone may be identified as being that of a particular person if there is evidence that shows the person identified is the only one who could have uttered the speech under the circumstances.

Select Usage (details) :



Best Evidence Rule for Chat Logs cartoons image illustration picture
Best Evidence Rule for Chat Logs

Description:
United States v. Jackson; to prove the contents of a writing or recording, must introduce either the original or an accurate duplicate of the original.

Select Usage (details) :



Journalists Must Reveal Sources To Grand Juries cartoons image illustration picture
Journalists Must Reveal Sources To Grand Juries

Description:
In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller; no First Amendment privilege that protects journalists from providing evidence to a grand jury.

Select Usage (details) :



Exceptions to Attorney Client Privilege cartoons image illustration picture
Exceptions to Attorney Client Privilege

Description:
Howell v. Joffe; conversation protected if originated in confidence that it would not be disclosed, was made to an attorney in his or her legal capacity to secure legal advice or services, and was kept confidential.

Select Usage (details) :



Attorney-Client Privilege Inadvertent Waiver cartoons image illustration picture
Attorney-Client Privilege Inadvertent Waiver

Description:
Koch Foods of Alabama, LLC v. General Electric Capital Corp.; totality of the circumstances balancing test determines whether client confidentiality waived.

Select Usage (details) :



Attorney Client Privilege Applies to Government Attorneys cartoons image illustration picture
Attorney Client Privilege Applies to Government Attorneys

Description:
In Re: Grand Jury Investigation Rowland; confidentiality applies to public attorneys same as with private lawyers.

Select Usage (details) :



Silence May or May Not Be Admissable Testimony cartoons image illustration picture
Silence May or May Not Be Admissable Testimony

Description:
Wilson v. Clancy; Under Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c), in order to create a triable issue of fact, affidavits must contain evidence that would be admissible at trial; affidavit; inference; joint tenancy; right of survivorship; summary judgment.

Select Usage (details) :



Dying Declaration Exception to Hearsay Rule cartoons image illustration picture
Dying Declaration Exception to Hearsay Rule

Description:
State v. Jensen; To be a dying declaration, statement must have been made by the declarant while believing death was imminent, and must concern the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be the declarant's impending death.

Select Usage (details) :



Hearsay Within Hearsay Can Be Admissable cartoons image illustration picture
Hearsay Within Hearsay Can Be Admissable

Description:
Sana v. Hawaiian Cruises, Ltd; For documents to be admissible, each layer of hearsay within them must satisfy an exception to the hearsay rule; business-records exception; Jones Act; maintenance and cure.

Select Usage (details) :



Near Miss Doctrine for Hearsay Evidence cartoons image illustration picture
Near Miss Doctrine for Hearsay Evidence

Description:
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co., Ltd; The residual hearsay exceptions should be used very rarely, and only in exceptional and unanticipated circumstances that are not specifically covered by particular exceptions.

Select Usage (details) :



Defendant May Introduce Evidence of Third Party's Guilt cartoons image illustration picture
Defendant May Introduce Evidence of Third Party's Guilt

Description:
Holmes v. South Carolina; Rules of evidence in criminal trials may not be arbitrary, must be focused on the central issues in the case, and must be applied to afford the defendant a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.

Select Usage (details) :



Forfeiture By Wrongdoing cartoons image illustration picture
Forfeiture By Wrongdoing

Description:
Giles v. California; Forfeiture by wrongdoing applies only when defendant engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure unavailability of declarant as witness; domestic volence.

Select Usage (details) :



Affidavits That Support Search Warrants cartoons image illustration picture
Affidavits That Support Search Warrants

Description:
U.S. v. Tzannos; There is a presumption of validity with respect to affidavits supporting search warrants; ex parte; franks hearing; in camera.

Select Usage (details) :



Admitting Photocopies Usually Allowed cartoons image illustration picture
Admitting Photocopies Usually Allowed

Description:
United States v. Hampton; Under Federal Rule of Evidence 1003, a duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless there is a genuine question as to the authenticity of the original.

Select Usage (details) :



Hypnotism Not Allowed To Refresh Memory cartoons image illustration picture
Hypnotism Not Allowed To Refresh Memory

Description:
State v. Moore; The hypnotically refreshed testimony of a witness in a criminal trial is generally inadmissible.

Select Usage (details) :



Judicial Notice Of Geographic Facts cartoons image illustration picture
Judicial Notice Of Geographic Facts

Description:
De La Cruz v. City of Los Angeles; An appellate court has the authority to take judicial notice of the distances between places, and a map is a proper subject of judicial notice; respondeat superior.

Select Usage (details) :



Judicial Notice of Fact cartoons image illustration picture
Judicial Notice of Fact

Description:
Fielding v. State; When a court takes judicial notice of a fact in a criminal case, the court must instruct the jury that it may, but is not required to, accept as conclusive any fact so judicially noticed; directed verdict; harmless error; jury instructi

Select Usage (details) :



Common Knowledge May Be Considered By Fact Finders cartoons image illustration picture
Common Knowledge May Be Considered By Fact Finders

Description:
U.S. v. Amado-Nunez; The whole range of human experience, from the rough meaning of common terms to human psychology, and which may properly enter into the fact-finder's decision-making process without the need for direct evidence.

Select Usage (details) :



Rebuttable Presumption cartoons image illustration picture
Rebuttable Presumption

Description:
In re Nicholas H; The presumption that a man holding out a child as his own is the parent of that child is rebuttable, by clear and convincing evidence that is not the biological parent; presumption of paternity; rebuttable presumption.

Select Usage (details) :



DNA Evidence cartoons image illustration picture
DNA Evidence

Description:
Brown v. Farwell; A federal court considering a habeas corpus petition may exclude evidence admitted in the state court if the evidence rendered the trial so fundamentally unfair as to violate federal due process; reasonable doubt.

Select Usage (details) :



Excited Utterance Exception to Hearsay cartoons image illustration picture
Excited Utterance Exception to Hearsay

Description:
United States v. Arnold; May admit an out-of-court statement for truth of the matter asserted if the statement relates to a startling event or condition and was made while declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.

Select Usage (details) :



Confrontation Clause cartoons image illustration picture
Confrontation Clause

Description:
People v. Moreno; defendant forfeits his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation if he wrongfully keeps a witness from testifying at trial, but it must be proven defendant's actions were intended to make witness unavailable; confrontation clause.

Select Usage (details) :



Client Identities Are Not Attorney Client Privilege cartoons image illustration picture
Client Identities Are Not Attorney Client Privilege

Description:
In Re Osterhoudt; Identity of attorney's client and nature of fee agreement are not protected by attorney-client privilege, unless disclosure of the information would implicate the client in the criminal activity for which legal advice was sought.

Select Usage (details) :



Crime Fraud Exception cartoons image illustration picture
Crime Fraud Exception

Description:
United States v. Zolin; The court should undertake an in camera review of evidence to determine if the crime-fraud exception will bar a claim of attorney-client privilege.

Select Usage (details) :



Marital Privilege cartoons image illustration picture
Marital Privilege

Description:
United States v. Montgomery; the marital communications privilege applies to all private communications between spouses in a valid marriage unless evidence shows they were not intended to be confidential.

Select Usage (details) :



Authentication and Foundation cartoons image illustration picture
Authentication and Foundation

Description:
Turnage v. State; A duplicate document or recording is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a genuine question is raised about the authenticity of the duplicate or it would be unfair to admit.

Select Usage (details) :



An Affiant Is a Witness cartoons image illustration picture
An Affiant Is a Witness

Description:
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts; an affidavit is a witness for Sixth Amendment, so can be confronted at trial unless (1) unavailable to testify and (2) adverse party had a prior opportunity to cross examine the maker.

Select Usage (details) :



Dying Declaration During Police Interrogation cartoons image illustration picture
Dying Declaration During Police Interrogation

Description:
Michigan v. Bryant; Out-of-court statements made to police by an unavailable witness are admissible when the primary purpose of the police interrogation that elicited the statements was to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency.

Select Usage (details) :



Admissability of Taped Conversations cartoons image illustration picture
Admissability of Taped Conversations

Description:
United States v. Oslund; taped conversations are admissible if the surrounding circumstances as a whole demonstrate reliability.

Select Usage (details) :



Crime Lab Testimony cartoons image illustration picture
Crime Lab Testimony

Description:
Bullcoming v. New Mexico; Confrontation Clause; surrogate testimony; right to confront the lab analyst who certified a forensic laboratory report; right to cross-examination; DUI; DWI; blood alcohol level.

Select Usage (details) :



Expert on Eyewitness Testimony cartoons image illustration picture
Expert on Eyewitness Testimony

Description:
State v. Guilbert; Testimony by a qualified expert on the fallibility of eyewitness identification is admissible when the testimony would aid the jury in evaluating the state's identification evidence.

Select Usage (details) :



Unavailable Witness cartoons image illustration picture
Unavailable Witness

Description:
United States v. Duenas; similar motive to cross-examine required; former testimony inadmissible; deceased declarant; hearsay rule.

Select Usage (details) :



Lie Detector Test cartoons image illustration picture
Lie Detector Test

Description:
United States v. Semrau; admissibility of lie detector test; expert testimony; reliability of scientific evidence; Daubert hearing.

Select Usage (details) :



Late Filing cartoons image illustration picture
Late Filing

Description:
Williams v. District of Columbia; motion filed too late; timely filing required; missed deadline.

Select Usage (details) :



Admissability of Suicide Note cartoons image illustration picture
Admissability of Suicide Note

Description:
Garza v. Delta Tau Delta Fraternity National; dying declaration; hearsay rule; statement made by the declarant while believing her death was imminent.

Select Usage (details) :



Authentication of Evidence cartoons image illustration picture
Authentication of Evidence

Description:
Griffin v. State; authentication of evidence; authenticate printout of page from social network website.

Select Usage (details) :



Clergy Privilege cartoons image illustration picture
Clergy Privilege

Description:
In re Grand Jury Investigation; confessional; confessor; clergy communicant privilege; confidential relationship; priest; minister; clergyman.

Select Usage (details) :



Emergency Statements cartoons image illustration picture
Emergency Statements

Description:
People v. Sergio; Tarasoff exception; statement to the EMT ambulance drivers were not doctor patient privilege; physician patient privilege.

Select Usage (details) :



Innocence Project cartoons image illustration picture
Innocence Project

Description:
Peterson v. Bernardi; DNA evidence; testing evidence to prove innocence of convicted prisoner.

Select Usage (details) :



Dying Declaration cartoons image illustration picture
Dying Declaration

Description:
R. v. Perry; dying declaration hearsay exception requires expectation that death is imminent.

Select Usage (details) :



Inadmissable Dying Declaration cartoons image illustration picture
Inadmissable Dying Declaration

Description:
State v. Williams; Expression of opinion is inadmissable hearsay even if declarant thought death was imminent; hearsay rule.

Select Usage (details) :



Best Evidence Rule Computer Records cartoons image illustration picture
Best Evidence Rule Computer Records

Description:
United States v. Diaz-Lopez; best evidence rule does not apply to testimony that records have been examined and found not to contain any reference to a designated matter.

Select Usage (details) :



Improper Testimony cartoons image illustration picture
Improper Testimony

Description:
United States v. Moore; admission of improper testimony does not always result in reversal of conviction; inadmissible evidence; appeal; corroborating evidence.

Select Usage (details) :



Doctor Patient Privilege cartoons image illustration picture
Doctor Patient Privilege

Description:
United States v. Tome; physician patient privilege; statement to physician; hearsay rule; information required for diagnosis or treatment; Fed. R. Evid. 803(4).

Select Usage (details) :



Lab Report Admissable Evidence cartoons image illustration picture
Lab Report Admissable Evidence

Description:
Williams v. Illinois; Confrontation Clause; admission of DNA evidence; laboratory report; forensics report; DNA match; sexual assualt medical evidence.

Select Usage (details) :



Campbell v. Delbridge cartoons image illustration picture
Campbell v. Delbridge

Description:
Emotional distress; issues in medical malpractice case that are only peripheral to medical decisions do not require expert testimony.

Select Usage (details) :



Johnson v. Hillcrest Health Center, Inc. cartoons image illustration picture
Johnson v. Hillcrest Health Center, Inc.

Description:
Expert testimony is not necessary in medical malpractice case to show standard of care or deviations from that, if common knowledge of laypersons would enable jury to determine applicable standard of care and whether breach caused injury.

Select Usage (details) :