SlideShare a Scribd company logo
Florida Evidence:
Objections and Responses
Presented by Jordan Ostroff of Jordan Law
(407) 906-5529
General Rules
● When making an objection, stand up and say it with confidence.
● Make a legal objection “Objection, relevance.” Then just wait.
● No speaking objections!
● If you can remember rule numbers, you can say “under Florida Rule of Evidence
___,” state response.
● When making/responding to an objection, give the standard response first and
stop talking. Wait for the judge to ask you for follow-up.
● If the Judge has already made a ruling and you need to get more information
on the record, be as nice as possible and ask them if you can be heard for the
record (or for appellate purposes).
● Never argue to opposing counsel (don’t look at them when talking, don’t say
their name), argue to the Judge. Eye contact = persuasiveness.
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.401 – Definition of
Relevant Evidence
● Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact.
● A fact is “material” if its existence would provide the trier of fact with a basis
for making some inference, or chain of inferences, about an issue that is
necessary to a verdict
● It does not have to be a certain amount of relevance. So if opposing counsel
argues that it’s very relevant, that goes to the weight the jury should give it, not
the admissibility of the evidence).
● Conditional Relevance does make the standard higher
○ Preponderance of evidence for conditioned fact
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.401
Objection:
●Relevance
Response:
● Your Honor, a material fact
at issue is ________. This
goes to make that
(more/less) probable.
● This goes to the witness
bias/motive
● This is just laying
background information
● If the Judge asks why, then
explain how this fact
makes it more or less
probable
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.403 – Exclusion on
grounds of prejudice or confusion
● Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or
needless presentation of cumulative evidence. This
section shall not be construed to mean that evidence of
the existence of available third-party benefits is
inadmissible.
● Here we are arguing how helpful it is.
● All evidence should be prejudicial.
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.403
● This rule goes hand-in-hand with 90.401. Evidence can have some relevance
value, but you can argue that the prejudicial nature of it outweighs its
relevance.
○ Know the key phrase: The probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice.
● It’s a balancing test, we are arguing weight versus admissibility.
● Prejudice is present when the evidence is directed to an improper purpose,
such as evidence that inflames the jury or appeals improperly to the jury’s
emotions.
● If the evidence confuses the issues of what is decided then it can be excluded
○ Ex. Drug parties at Doctor’s office
○ Damage amounts in a liability phase trial
○ Breath results during a Motion to Suppress
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.403
Objection
● This is unfairly
prejudicial
● Relevance and it is
confusing the issues
● Burden is on objector to
show that the probative
value is substantially
outweighed by the
prejudice
Response
●Your Honor, the evidence will
not unfairly prejudice the
(Plaintiff/Defendant) and the
probative value outweighs any
danger.
● The probative value of this
evidence is very high because
of _____, therefore it clearly
outweighs any prejudice.
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.801 – Hearsay,
definitions, exceptions
● The following definitions apply under this chapter:
○ (a) A “statement” is:
■ 1. An oral or written assertion; or
■ 2. Nonverbal conduct of a person if it is intended by the
person as an assertion.
○ (b) A “declarant” is a person who makes a statement.
○ (c) “Hearsay” is a statement, other than one made by the
declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing,
○ offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.801 – Hearsay,
definitions, exceptions
● (2) A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing
and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement and the
statement 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
a deposition;
○ (b) Consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an
express or implied charge against the declarant of improper influence,
motive, or recent fabrication; or
○ (c) One of identification of a person made after perceiving the person.
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.801
● What is hearsay:
○ “Out-of-court statement / offered into evidence / for the
truth of the matter asserted” – Know this language!
● A direction or command is not hearsay
○ Ex. Go to the store!
● If you are using the statement to show future action it is
being used for the effect it had on the listener
○ Ex. She said “I’m going to blame you if you don’t climb
up the tree. What did you do then?
○ Answer: I climbed up the tree
● It is raining in Orlando right now! Hearsay?
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.801
Objection
●The question calls
for hearsay
●Objection hearsay
Response
● The testimony is not
offered for the truth but to
show the effect it had on
the listener.
● It is being offered to show
the declarant’s state of
mind
● It is being used to impeach
the witness with a prior
inconsistent statement.
● There is an exception under
90.803…then state
exception
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.803(18) –
Hearsay Exception; Admissions
● A statement that is offered against a party and is:
● (a) The party’s own statement in either an individual or a
representative capacity;
● (b) A statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or
belief in its truth;
● (c) A statement by a person specifically 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 thereof, made during
the existence of the relationship; or
● (e) A statement by a person who was a coconspirator of the party
during the course, and in furtherance, of the conspiracy. Upon
request of counsel, the court shall instruct the jury that the conspiracy
itself and each member’s participation in it must be established by
independent evidence, either before the introduction of any evidence
or before evidence is admitted under this paragraph.
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.803(18) – Hearsay
Exception; Admissions
● If you are Plaintiff counsel, you can get out statements of
the Defendant or Party reps
● If you are Defense counsel, you can get out statement of
the Plaintiff
● Response: This is an admission by a party opponent.
● Doesn’t include cops/victims in criminal.
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.803(1) &(2) – Hearsay
Exception; Spontaneous & Excited Utterance
● (1) A spontaneous statement describing or explaining an
event or condition made while the declarant was
perceiving the event or condition, or immediately
thereafter, except when such statement is made under
circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness.
● (2) EXCITED UTTERANCE.—A statement or excited
utterance relating to a startling event or condition made
while the declarant was under the stress of excitement
caused by the event or condition.
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.803(1) &(2)
● A spontaneous statement is one where the statement was made
without first engaging in reflective thought – thus tending to make it
trustworthy.
○ Must describe the event
○ Ex. A person observing a car accident says, “His car was swerving right before he the
curb.”
● To qualify as an excited utterance there must have been an event
startling enough to create excitement or some sort of stress. The
statement must be made close enough in time to not allow for
misrepresentation.
○ Only needs to be related to the event
○ Ex. A person observing a car accident says, “He had just finished a beer before he got
in the car!”
○ We also trade some time for the need for excitement. Can be longer between event
and statements, than in spontaneous statement.
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.803(1) &(2)
● To qualify as an excited utterance the following foundation must be laid before
getting the statement out:
○ There was a startling event that caused nervous excitement
○ The statement was made before there was time to misrepresent the event
○ The statement must be made while the person is under the stress of the
event
○ The statement must relate to the event or condition that caused excitement
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.803(1) &(2)
Objection
●Hearsay
Response
●The statement falls under the
exception as an excited
utterance. It was made
following the startling event
while the declarant was under
the stress of the event.
● This is a spontaneous
statement, it is about ____ and
describes _____.
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.803(3)– Hearsay Exception;
Then-existing mental, emotional, or physical
condition
● A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind, emotion, or physical
sensation including a statement of intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling,
pain or bodily health, when such evidence is offered to:
○ 1. Prove the declarant’s state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation at the
time or at any other time when such state is an issue in the action
○ 2. Prove or explain acts of subsequent conduct of the declarant.
● This rule allows for statements that prove the declarant’s state of mind,
emotion, or physical sensation, as well as the future conduct of the declarant.
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.803(3)
● However, this subsection does not make admissible:
○ An after-the-fact statement of memory or belief to prove
the fact remembered or believed unless such statement
related to the execution, revocation, identification, or
terms of the declarant’s will.
■ Tomorrow meet me at the rock where we murdered
John
● Past fact doesn’t come in.
○ A statement made under circumstances that indicate its
lack of trustworthiness
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.803(3)
Objection
●The question calls for hearsay
● Objection hearsay.
Response
●This is admissible under the
state of mind exception. The
declarant’s state of mind is at
issue.
●This is a statement about
future action/intent.
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.803(6)– Hearsay Exception;
Records of regularly conducted activity
● A record or report is admissible under the business record exception when by
testimony you establish:
○ The record was made at or near the time of the event recorded
○ The record was made with information from a person with knowledge who
had a duty to furnish such information
○ The record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity
○ It was the regular practice of the business to make such record
● Doesn’t have to be a custodian.
● Stores can’t enter slip and fall reports
● What about reciepts?
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.803(6)
Objection
●The document is hearsay
Response
● This falls under the
business record exception.
The witness laid foundation
that it was made at or near
the time of the event by a
person with such
information. They had a
duty to furnish this
information which is
regularly kept by the
business
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.805– Hearsay within Hearsay
● Hearsay within hearsay is not excluded under § 90.802, provided each part of
the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule as
provided in § 90.803 or § 90.804
● Ex. Michael told me that he knew Michelle was going to rob the bank because
she told him she was planning her getaway route.
○ Here Michelle and Michael both makes statements, so you need an exception for each
person/statement in order to get this statement admitted.
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.803 and § 90.804
● We did not cover MOST of the exceptions in here, but this
will cover MOST of the times you need them.
● A few quick tips:
○ Must believe you are doing to die and then not be available (you don’t
actually have to be dead!)
○ Police report are public records in Florida, but still inadmissible by the
State
○ Statements for medical treatment or diagnosis are the statements made
TO the medical person, not the statements made BY the medical person.
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.701 – Opinion
testimony of lay witness
● If a witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness’s testimony about what
he or she perceived may be in the form of inference and opinion when:
○ (1) The witness cannot readily, and with equal accuracy and adequacy,
communicate what he or she has perceived to the trier of fact without
testifying in terms of inferences or opinions and the witness’s use of
inferences or opinions will not mislead the trier of fact to the prejudice of
the objecting party; and
○ (2) The opinions and inferences do not require a special knowledge, skill,
experience, or training.
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.701 – Opinion
testimony of a lay witness
● The rule normally is that a lay witness must testify only to facts which they
observed and are not permitted to testify in terms of an opinion.
○ The case was going fast versus the car was going 70 miles per hour
● In order to give an opinion it must be “rationally based” on the witnesses
perceptions, i.e. a normal person could make the same opinion based on the
same facts.
○ Ex. Just because a witness did not observe the child draw on the wall, they
can give an opinion if the child was the only one in the room, it looks like a
kid’s drawing, they had given the child that color crayon, etc.
● Usually based upon our five senses
○ He was screaming
○ It felt hot
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.701
Objection
●Objection, improper opinion
●Objection, this calls for an
expert opinion
Response
●The opinion is
admissible because it
is rationally based on
the witnesses
perception of the
events and doesn’t
require any expertise.
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.703 – Opinion on
ultimate issue
● Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference
otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it
includes an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of
fact.
● Must balance this against invading the province of the jury.
● An example of testimony embracing the ultimate issue would be testimony
regarding causation in a negligence case.
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.604 – Lack of
Personal Knowledge
● Except as otherwise provided in s. 90.702, a witness may
not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced
which is sufficient to support a finding that the witness
has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove
personal knowledge may be given by the witness’s own
testimony.
● Speculation Objection is NOWHERE in the Rules of
Evidence
Lack of Personal Knowledge vs.
Speculation
● This is Jordan Ostroff evidence - it’s not a real thing, but it makes
sense
● Personal Knowledge - something they CAN know but DOES NOT know
● Speculation - something they CANNOT know and DOES NOT know.
● Ask yourself this:
○ Difference between: Someone looks angry and someone is angry
○ Are they basing this on what they saw or heard?
○ Is the answer someone else’s mental state?
○ Does the witness know the answer?
○ Can the witness find the answer?
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.604
Objection
●Lack of personal
knowledge
●The witness does not
have personal
knowledge of the facts
about which he/she is
testifying
Response
●The witness has said
that he/she witnessed
the event he/she does
have personal
knowledge
●The witness is not
speculating
Entering Evidence Basics
1. Let the record reflect I’m showing opposing
counsel what has been marked for identification
purposes as Plaintiff/Defense Exhibit ___
2. May I approach the witness?
3. I am showing you what has been marked for
identification purposes as Plaintiff/Defense
Exhibit ___, do you recognize this?
4. What is it?
5. Does this fairly and accurately represent the way it
looked the last time you saw it?
6. Has it been changed or altered in anyway since
you last saw it?
7. Your Honor, we move into evidence what has been
pre-marked as exhibit ___ as exhibit ___
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.614 – Prior
statements of witnesses
● (1) When a witness is examined concerning the witness’s prior written
statement or concerning an oral statement that has been reduced to writing,
the court, on motion of the adverse party, shall order the statement to be
shown to the witness or its contents disclosed to him or her.
● (2) Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is
inadmissible unless the witness is first afforded an opportunity to explain or
deny the prior statement and the opposing party is afforded an opportunity to
interrogate the witness on it, or the interests of justice otherwise require. If a
witness denies making or does not distinctly admit making the prior
inconsistent statement, extrinsic evidence of such statement is admissible.
This subsection is not applicable to admissions of a party-opponent as defined
in s. 90.803(18).
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.614 – Prior
statements of witnesses
● You can use a prior statement of a witness for two purposes: refresh
their memory or impeachment
● With respect to opposing counsel, you should show them or notify
them what parts of a prior statement you are referring to, i.e. page &
line number
● Use refreshment or impeachment language as provided separately.
● If you are refreshing, you can refresh with ANYTHING, if you are
impeaching it must be the statement of that witness (but doesn’t need
to be sworn).
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.105 –
Preliminary Questions
● (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), the court shall determine
preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be
a witness, the existence of a privilege, or the admissibility of
evidence.
● (2) When the relevancy of evidence depends upon the existence of
a preliminary fact, the court shall admit the proffered evidence when
there is prima facie evidence sufficient to support a finding of the
preliminary fact. If prima facie evidence is not introduced to support a
finding of the preliminary fact, the court may admit the proffered
evidence subject to the subsequent introduction of prima facie
evidence of the preliminary fact.
● (3) Hearings on the admissibility of confessions shall be conducted
out of the hearing of the jury. Hearings on other preliminary matters
shall be similarly conducted when the interests of justice require or
when an accused is a witness, if he or she so requests.
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.108 – Introduction of related
writings or recorded statements
● (1) When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a
party, an adverse party may require him or her at that time to introduce any
other part or any other writing or recorded statement that in fairness ought to
be considered contemporaneously. An adverse party is not bound by evidence
introduced under this section.
● (2) The report of a court reporter, when certified to by the court reporter as
being a correct transcript of the testimony and proceedings in the case, is
prima facie a correct statement of such testimony and proceedings.
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.108 – Introduction of
related writings or recorded statements
● This is generally referred to as the “Rule of Completeness”
● This rule is important if you a reading part of a document
or statement, i.e. deposition testimony.
● The rule requires that if the adverse party wants the
remainder of a document to be read, it shall be read when
the party reading it is introducing the statement.
○ You want to read in lines 3-5
○ The other party could ask for lines 6-7 also
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.404(a) – Character
Evidence; when admissible.-
● (a) Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is inadmissible to
prove action in conformity with it on a particular occasion, except:
○ (a) Character of accused.—Evidence of a pertinent trait of character
offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait.
○ (b) Character of victim.—
■ 1. Except as provided in s. 794.022, evidence of a pertinent trait of
character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the
prosecution to rebut the trait;
■ 2. or Evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered
by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim
was the aggressor.
○ (c) Character of witness.—Evidence of the character of a witness, as
provided in ss. 90.608-90.610.
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.404(b) – Other
crimes, wrongs, or acts.
● Similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is
admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue,
including, but not limited to, proof of motive, opportunity,
intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence
of mistake or accident, but it is inadmissible when the
evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or
propensity.
● Can be ANY reason that isn’t preponderance
● Wear certain mask, get caught once.
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.404 – Character
Evidence
● Character may be an element of the claim, this is called
“character in issue.”
● Character evidence is not allowed to show propensity
○ Ex. Because he stole from his mother once, he probably
robbed the bank
● Character objections should go with 90.403 objections, because
character evidence while probative may be prejudicial as well.
● Character for truthfulness is put at issue when the person
testifies (that is always at issue!)
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.404(a)
Objection
●This is inadmissible character
evidence
Response
●The good character/reputation
of the witness is directly at
issue because it is an element
of the claim
●Defense put the Defendant’s
good character at issue, the
door has been open to rebut
that with bad character.
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.405 – Methods of
Proving Character
● REPUTATION.—When evidence of the character of a
person or of a trait of that person’s character is
admissible, proof may be made by testimony about that
person’s reputation.
● SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF CONDUCT.—When character or a
trait of character of a person is an essential element of a
charge, claim, or defense, proof may be made of specific
instances of that person’s conduct.
● Florida doesn’t allow opinion character
● Must be reputation in a community
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.609 – Character of
witness as impeachment
● A party may attack or support the credibility of a witness,
including an accused, by evidence in the form of
reputation, except that:
○ (1) The evidence may refer only to character relating
to truthfulness.
○ (2) Evidence of a truthful character is admissible only
after the character of the witness for truthfulness has
been attacked by reputation evidence.
Fl. R. Evid. § 90.609 – Character of
witness as impeachment
● Evidence of the truthful character of a witness is
admissible, but must be in the form of reputation evidence.
● You can present truthful character evidence only after
evidence attacking their character for truthfulness has
been presented.
○ Except for criminal defendant
Objection: Ambiguous (Vague) Question
Meaning
●Questions should be
asked in a form that
makes the meaning of
the question clear.
●If the question is
vague and cannot be
answered, the witness
will likely misconstrue
it.
Response
●The question is not
vague because it asks
specifically…….
Objection: Argumentative
Meaning
●A question is
argumentative if it is
asked for the purpose
of making an
argument to the jury,
to summarize, or
comment on evidence.
●It doesn’t seek new
evidence, just the
counsels conclusions
Response
●The question is not
argumentative I’m
asking the witness if
this is true (if they
agree, etc..)
Objection: Asked & Answered
Meaning
●If counsel repeats a
question they have
already asked and the
witness has already
answered.
●This does not apply if
the question was
asked on direct and
again asked on cross!
Response
●Opposing counsel
asked the question
before, I have not.
●The witness has not
answered this
question.
Objection: Assumes Facts Not In Evidence
Meaning
●When counsel asks a
question that assumes
a fact not yet proven, it
suggests to the jury
the truth of the fact.
Response
●The fact was proven
by the testimony of
______.
●The fact will be proven
during the testimony
of _______.
Objection: Compound Question
Meaning
●A compound question
is a question that is
two or more questions
in one. It will likely
confuse the witness.
●Ex. What time did you
go to the store and did
you see a girl stealing
cookies?
Response
●I’ll rephrase the
question.
Objection: Leading
Meaning
●Leading questions
suggest the answer
and are typically only
allowed on cross
examination.
●Ex. You were going
100 miles per hour,
were you not?
Response
●The question does not
suggest the answer, it
is not leading.
●Ex. Were you at the
office on January 1st?
Objection: Narrative
Meaning
●A question that asks
the witness to respond
with a long narrative
answer
Response
●We ask that you allow
the witness to answer
in this manner
Objection: Non-responsive
Meaning
●You are entitled to get
a responsive answer. If
the witness does not
respond, as a last
ditch effort you can
strike an answer if it
doesn’t answer your
question.
●Tip: Ask the question a
2nd time, if the witness
is still non-responsive
then use this tool.
Response
●The witness did
answer the question.

More Related Content

What's hot

Stern Response to motion to dismiss 8-20-10
Stern Response to motion to dismiss 8-20-10Stern Response to motion to dismiss 8-20-10
Stern Response to motion to dismiss 8-20-10
JRachelle
 
PLS 54 Memorandum of Points and Authorities
PLS 54 Memorandum of Points and AuthoritiesPLS 54 Memorandum of Points and Authorities
PLS 54 Memorandum of Points and Authorities
Joshua Desautels
 
Motion for Leave To Amend And Add Known Jane Does
Motion for Leave To Amend And Add Known Jane DoesMotion for Leave To Amend And Add Known Jane Does
Motion for Leave To Amend And Add Known Jane Does
JRachelle
 
Mediation Statement
Mediation StatementMediation Statement
Mediation Statement
Devon Golden
 
LITIGACION ORAL DEL CASO
LITIGACION ORAL DEL CASOLITIGACION ORAL DEL CASO
LITIGACION ORAL DEL CASO
clearlife
 
Capitulo Vii. Medios De Prueba
Capitulo Vii. Medios De PruebaCapitulo Vii. Medios De Prueba
Capitulo Vii. Medios De Prueba
Rock Ash
 
Defendants motion for summary judgment, incorporated memorandum of law in sup...
Defendants motion for summary judgment, incorporated memorandum of law in sup...Defendants motion for summary judgment, incorporated memorandum of law in sup...
Defendants motion for summary judgment, incorporated memorandum of law in sup...
Cocoselul Inaripat
 
Defendants’ response brief in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary ju...
Defendants’ response brief in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary ju...Defendants’ response brief in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary ju...
Defendants’ response brief in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary ju...
Cocoselul Inaripat
 

What's hot (20)

Mehvish Complaint to Police Station Boat Basin
Mehvish Complaint to Police Station Boat BasinMehvish Complaint to Police Station Boat Basin
Mehvish Complaint to Police Station Boat Basin
 
Stern Response to motion to dismiss 8-20-10
Stern Response to motion to dismiss 8-20-10Stern Response to motion to dismiss 8-20-10
Stern Response to motion to dismiss 8-20-10
 
PLS 54 Memorandum of Points and Authorities
PLS 54 Memorandum of Points and AuthoritiesPLS 54 Memorandum of Points and Authorities
PLS 54 Memorandum of Points and Authorities
 
La prueba documental expo
La prueba documental expoLa prueba documental expo
La prueba documental expo
 
Necc removal
Necc removalNecc removal
Necc removal
 
Sample ex parte application for TRO and preliminary injunction in United Stat...
Sample ex parte application for TRO and preliminary injunction in United Stat...Sample ex parte application for TRO and preliminary injunction in United Stat...
Sample ex parte application for TRO and preliminary injunction in United Stat...
 
Sample motion for family code section 1101 damages and sanctions
Sample motion for family code section 1101 damages and sanctionsSample motion for family code section 1101 damages and sanctions
Sample motion for family code section 1101 damages and sanctions
 
Motion for Leave To Amend And Add Known Jane Does
Motion for Leave To Amend And Add Known Jane DoesMotion for Leave To Amend And Add Known Jane Does
Motion for Leave To Amend And Add Known Jane Does
 
Sample California complaint for unfair business practices
Sample California complaint for unfair business practicesSample California complaint for unfair business practices
Sample California complaint for unfair business practices
 
Mediation Statement
Mediation StatementMediation Statement
Mediation Statement
 
Notice of taking deposition
Notice of taking depositionNotice of taking deposition
Notice of taking deposition
 
LITIGACION ORAL DEL CASO
LITIGACION ORAL DEL CASOLITIGACION ORAL DEL CASO
LITIGACION ORAL DEL CASO
 
El allanamiento (generalidades)
El allanamiento (generalidades)El allanamiento (generalidades)
El allanamiento (generalidades)
 
Sample California meet and confer letter
Sample California meet and confer letter Sample California meet and confer letter
Sample California meet and confer letter
 
Sample motion to modify child custody and visitation in California
Sample motion to modify child custody and visitation in CaliforniaSample motion to modify child custody and visitation in California
Sample motion to modify child custody and visitation in California
 
Capitulo Vii. Medios De Prueba
Capitulo Vii. Medios De PruebaCapitulo Vii. Medios De Prueba
Capitulo Vii. Medios De Prueba
 
Defendants motion for summary judgment, incorporated memorandum of law in sup...
Defendants motion for summary judgment, incorporated memorandum of law in sup...Defendants motion for summary judgment, incorporated memorandum of law in sup...
Defendants motion for summary judgment, incorporated memorandum of law in sup...
 
La extradicion - internacional privado
La extradicion - internacional privadoLa extradicion - internacional privado
La extradicion - internacional privado
 
Defendants’ response brief in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary ju...
Defendants’ response brief in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary ju...Defendants’ response brief in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary ju...
Defendants’ response brief in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary ju...
 
Sample opposition to petition to compel arbitration in California
Sample opposition to petition to compel arbitration in CaliforniaSample opposition to petition to compel arbitration in California
Sample opposition to petition to compel arbitration in California
 

Similar to Florida evidence

Deposition Power Point Final.PDF
Deposition Power Point Final.PDFDeposition Power Point Final.PDF
Deposition Power Point Final.PDF
Christopher Rumbold
 
WITNESSES-COMPETENCE AND EXAMINATION.pptx
WITNESSES-COMPETENCE AND EXAMINATION.pptxWITNESSES-COMPETENCE AND EXAMINATION.pptx
WITNESSES-COMPETENCE AND EXAMINATION.pptx
AkashTandon19
 
The Sentencing Hearing
The Sentencing HearingThe Sentencing Hearing
The Sentencing Hearing
Upwork
 
WITNESSES-COMPETENCE AND EXAMINATION.pptx
WITNESSES-COMPETENCE AND EXAMINATION.pptxWITNESSES-COMPETENCE AND EXAMINATION.pptx
WITNESSES-COMPETENCE AND EXAMINATION.pptx
ssuser775c16
 

Similar to Florida evidence (20)

Deposition Power Point Final.PDF
Deposition Power Point Final.PDFDeposition Power Point Final.PDF
Deposition Power Point Final.PDF
 
Deposition Strategies
Deposition StrategiesDeposition Strategies
Deposition Strategies
 
Evidence 101: Part II
Evidence 101: Part IIEvidence 101: Part II
Evidence 101: Part II
 
Judicial 101 Final
Judicial 101 FinalJudicial 101 Final
Judicial 101 Final
 
WITNESSES-COMPETENCE AND EXAMINATION.pptx
WITNESSES-COMPETENCE AND EXAMINATION.pptxWITNESSES-COMPETENCE AND EXAMINATION.pptx
WITNESSES-COMPETENCE AND EXAMINATION.pptx
 
The Sentencing Hearing
The Sentencing HearingThe Sentencing Hearing
The Sentencing Hearing
 
Hearsay
HearsayHearsay
Hearsay
 
Chapter8
Chapter8Chapter8
Chapter8
 
Depositions
DepositionsDepositions
Depositions
 
PPT_Law of Evidence_ Unit- 1.pdf
PPT_Law of Evidence_ Unit- 1.pdfPPT_Law of Evidence_ Unit- 1.pdf
PPT_Law of Evidence_ Unit- 1.pdf
 
WITNESSES-COMPETENCE AND EXAMINATION.pptx
WITNESSES-COMPETENCE AND EXAMINATION.pptxWITNESSES-COMPETENCE AND EXAMINATION.pptx
WITNESSES-COMPETENCE AND EXAMINATION.pptx
 
The Anatomy Of A Civil Lawsuit In Arizona
The Anatomy Of A Civil Lawsuit In ArizonaThe Anatomy Of A Civil Lawsuit In Arizona
The Anatomy Of A Civil Lawsuit In Arizona
 
Medical evidence
Medical evidence Medical evidence
Medical evidence
 
LLB LAW NOTES ON LAW OF EVIDENCE
LLB LAW NOTES ON LAW OF EVIDENCELLB LAW NOTES ON LAW OF EVIDENCE
LLB LAW NOTES ON LAW OF EVIDENCE
 
Https _ecf.okwd.uscourts.gov_cgi-bin_show_temp.pl_file=1708178-0--893
Https  _ecf.okwd.uscourts.gov_cgi-bin_show_temp.pl_file=1708178-0--893Https  _ecf.okwd.uscourts.gov_cgi-bin_show_temp.pl_file=1708178-0--893
Https _ecf.okwd.uscourts.gov_cgi-bin_show_temp.pl_file=1708178-0--893
 
CHARLES DYER'S NOT GUILTY VERDICT FOR THE FEDERAL WEAPONS CHARGE!
CHARLES DYER'S NOT GUILTY VERDICT FOR THE FEDERAL WEAPONS CHARGE! CHARLES DYER'S NOT GUILTY VERDICT FOR THE FEDERAL WEAPONS CHARGE!
CHARLES DYER'S NOT GUILTY VERDICT FOR THE FEDERAL WEAPONS CHARGE!
 
HEARSAY-EVIDENCE POWERPOINT FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES
HEARSAY-EVIDENCE POWERPOINT FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSESHEARSAY-EVIDENCE POWERPOINT FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES
HEARSAY-EVIDENCE POWERPOINT FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES
 
The sworn statement
The sworn statementThe sworn statement
The sworn statement
 
Undue Influence
Undue InfluenceUndue Influence
Undue Influence
 
indian evidence act.pdf.......very helpful for law student
indian evidence act.pdf.......very helpful for law studentindian evidence act.pdf.......very helpful for law student
indian evidence act.pdf.......very helpful for law student
 

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (17)

Everything You Should Know About Child Custody and Parenting While Living in ...
Everything You Should Know About Child Custody and Parenting While Living in ...Everything You Should Know About Child Custody and Parenting While Living in ...
Everything You Should Know About Child Custody and Parenting While Living in ...
 
Justice Advocates Legal Defence Firm
Justice Advocates Legal Defence FirmJustice Advocates Legal Defence Firm
Justice Advocates Legal Defence Firm
 
Embed-1-4.pdf Decision of the High Court
Embed-1-4.pdf Decision of the High CourtEmbed-1-4.pdf Decision of the High Court
Embed-1-4.pdf Decision of the High Court
 
Starbucks Corp. v. Sardarbuksh Coffee Co.
Starbucks Corp. v. Sardarbuksh Coffee Co.Starbucks Corp. v. Sardarbuksh Coffee Co.
Starbucks Corp. v. Sardarbuksh Coffee Co.
 
Supreme Court Regulation No. 3 of 2023 on Procedure for Appointment of Arbitr...
Supreme Court Regulation No. 3 of 2023 on Procedure for Appointment of Arbitr...Supreme Court Regulation No. 3 of 2023 on Procedure for Appointment of Arbitr...
Supreme Court Regulation No. 3 of 2023 on Procedure for Appointment of Arbitr...
 
Casa Tradicion v. Casa Azul Spirits (S.D. Tex. 2024)
Casa Tradicion v. Casa Azul Spirits (S.D. Tex. 2024)Casa Tradicion v. Casa Azul Spirits (S.D. Tex. 2024)
Casa Tradicion v. Casa Azul Spirits (S.D. Tex. 2024)
 
Solidarity and Taxation: the Ubuntu approach in South Africa
Solidarity and Taxation: the Ubuntu approach in South AfricaSolidarity and Taxation: the Ubuntu approach in South Africa
Solidarity and Taxation: the Ubuntu approach in South Africa
 
REVIVING OUR STAR GOD IMAGES FROM MARRYING OUR 4 HOLY LAWS OF STAR GODS
REVIVING OUR STAR GOD IMAGES FROM MARRYING OUR 4 HOLY LAWS OF STAR GODSREVIVING OUR STAR GOD IMAGES FROM MARRYING OUR 4 HOLY LAWS OF STAR GODS
REVIVING OUR STAR GOD IMAGES FROM MARRYING OUR 4 HOLY LAWS OF STAR GODS
 
Application of Doctrine of Renvoi by foreign courts under conflict of laws
Application of Doctrine of Renvoi by foreign courts under conflict of lawsApplication of Doctrine of Renvoi by foreign courts under conflict of laws
Application of Doctrine of Renvoi by foreign courts under conflict of laws
 
PRECEDENT AS A SOURCE OF LAW (SAIF JAVED).pptx
PRECEDENT AS A SOURCE OF LAW (SAIF JAVED).pptxPRECEDENT AS A SOURCE OF LAW (SAIF JAVED).pptx
PRECEDENT AS A SOURCE OF LAW (SAIF JAVED).pptx
 
A Brief Introduction About Katelyn Prost
A Brief Introduction About Katelyn ProstA Brief Introduction About Katelyn Prost
A Brief Introduction About Katelyn Prost
 
Indian Partnership Act 1932, Rights and Duties of Partners
Indian Partnership Act 1932, Rights and Duties of PartnersIndian Partnership Act 1932, Rights and Duties of Partners
Indian Partnership Act 1932, Rights and Duties of Partners
 
Rights of Consumers under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Rights of Consumers under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.Rights of Consumers under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Rights of Consumers under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
 
DNA Testing in Civil and Criminal Matters.pptx
DNA Testing in Civil and Criminal Matters.pptxDNA Testing in Civil and Criminal Matters.pptx
DNA Testing in Civil and Criminal Matters.pptx
 
Dandan Liu is the worst real estate agent on earth..pdf
Dandan Liu is the worst real estate agent on earth..pdfDandan Liu is the worst real estate agent on earth..pdf
Dandan Liu is the worst real estate agent on earth..pdf
 
7 Basic Steps of Trust Administration.pdf
7 Basic Steps of Trust Administration.pdf7 Basic Steps of Trust Administration.pdf
7 Basic Steps of Trust Administration.pdf
 
dandan liu need to rot when she dies..pdf
dandan liu need to rot when she dies..pdfdandan liu need to rot when she dies..pdf
dandan liu need to rot when she dies..pdf
 

Florida evidence

  • 1. Florida Evidence: Objections and Responses Presented by Jordan Ostroff of Jordan Law (407) 906-5529
  • 2. General Rules ● When making an objection, stand up and say it with confidence. ● Make a legal objection “Objection, relevance.” Then just wait. ● No speaking objections! ● If you can remember rule numbers, you can say “under Florida Rule of Evidence ___,” state response. ● When making/responding to an objection, give the standard response first and stop talking. Wait for the judge to ask you for follow-up. ● If the Judge has already made a ruling and you need to get more information on the record, be as nice as possible and ask them if you can be heard for the record (or for appellate purposes). ● Never argue to opposing counsel (don’t look at them when talking, don’t say their name), argue to the Judge. Eye contact = persuasiveness.
  • 3. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.401 – Definition of Relevant Evidence ● Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact. ● A fact is “material” if its existence would provide the trier of fact with a basis for making some inference, or chain of inferences, about an issue that is necessary to a verdict ● It does not have to be a certain amount of relevance. So if opposing counsel argues that it’s very relevant, that goes to the weight the jury should give it, not the admissibility of the evidence). ● Conditional Relevance does make the standard higher ○ Preponderance of evidence for conditioned fact
  • 4. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.401 Objection: ●Relevance Response: ● Your Honor, a material fact at issue is ________. This goes to make that (more/less) probable. ● This goes to the witness bias/motive ● This is just laying background information ● If the Judge asks why, then explain how this fact makes it more or less probable
  • 5. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.403 – Exclusion on grounds of prejudice or confusion ● Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. This section shall not be construed to mean that evidence of the existence of available third-party benefits is inadmissible. ● Here we are arguing how helpful it is. ● All evidence should be prejudicial.
  • 6. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.403 ● This rule goes hand-in-hand with 90.401. Evidence can have some relevance value, but you can argue that the prejudicial nature of it outweighs its relevance. ○ Know the key phrase: The probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. ● It’s a balancing test, we are arguing weight versus admissibility. ● Prejudice is present when the evidence is directed to an improper purpose, such as evidence that inflames the jury or appeals improperly to the jury’s emotions. ● If the evidence confuses the issues of what is decided then it can be excluded ○ Ex. Drug parties at Doctor’s office ○ Damage amounts in a liability phase trial ○ Breath results during a Motion to Suppress
  • 7. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.403 Objection ● This is unfairly prejudicial ● Relevance and it is confusing the issues ● Burden is on objector to show that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the prejudice Response ●Your Honor, the evidence will not unfairly prejudice the (Plaintiff/Defendant) and the probative value outweighs any danger. ● The probative value of this evidence is very high because of _____, therefore it clearly outweighs any prejudice.
  • 8. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.801 – Hearsay, definitions, exceptions ● The following definitions apply under this chapter: ○ (a) A “statement” is: ■ 1. An oral or written assertion; or ■ 2. Nonverbal conduct of a person if it is intended by the person as an assertion. ○ (b) A “declarant” is a person who makes a statement. ○ (c) “Hearsay” is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, ○ offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
  • 9. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.801 – Hearsay, definitions, exceptions ● (2) A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement and the statement 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 a deposition; ○ (b) Consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of improper influence, motive, or recent fabrication; or ○ (c) One of identification of a person made after perceiving the person.
  • 10. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.801 ● What is hearsay: ○ “Out-of-court statement / offered into evidence / for the truth of the matter asserted” – Know this language! ● A direction or command is not hearsay ○ Ex. Go to the store! ● If you are using the statement to show future action it is being used for the effect it had on the listener ○ Ex. She said “I’m going to blame you if you don’t climb up the tree. What did you do then? ○ Answer: I climbed up the tree ● It is raining in Orlando right now! Hearsay?
  • 11. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.801 Objection ●The question calls for hearsay ●Objection hearsay Response ● The testimony is not offered for the truth but to show the effect it had on the listener. ● It is being offered to show the declarant’s state of mind ● It is being used to impeach the witness with a prior inconsistent statement. ● There is an exception under 90.803…then state exception
  • 12. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.803(18) – Hearsay Exception; Admissions ● A statement that is offered against a party and is: ● (a) The party’s own statement in either an individual or a representative capacity; ● (b) A statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth; ● (c) A statement by a person specifically 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 thereof, made during the existence of the relationship; or ● (e) A statement by a person who was a coconspirator of the party during the course, and in furtherance, of the conspiracy. Upon request of counsel, the court shall instruct the jury that the conspiracy itself and each member’s participation in it must be established by independent evidence, either before the introduction of any evidence or before evidence is admitted under this paragraph.
  • 13. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.803(18) – Hearsay Exception; Admissions ● If you are Plaintiff counsel, you can get out statements of the Defendant or Party reps ● If you are Defense counsel, you can get out statement of the Plaintiff ● Response: This is an admission by a party opponent. ● Doesn’t include cops/victims in criminal.
  • 14. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.803(1) &(2) – Hearsay Exception; Spontaneous & Excited Utterance ● (1) A spontaneous statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter, except when such statement is made under circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness. ● (2) EXCITED UTTERANCE.—A statement or excited utterance relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.
  • 15. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.803(1) &(2) ● A spontaneous statement is one where the statement was made without first engaging in reflective thought – thus tending to make it trustworthy. ○ Must describe the event ○ Ex. A person observing a car accident says, “His car was swerving right before he the curb.” ● To qualify as an excited utterance there must have been an event startling enough to create excitement or some sort of stress. The statement must be made close enough in time to not allow for misrepresentation. ○ Only needs to be related to the event ○ Ex. A person observing a car accident says, “He had just finished a beer before he got in the car!” ○ We also trade some time for the need for excitement. Can be longer between event and statements, than in spontaneous statement.
  • 16. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.803(1) &(2) ● To qualify as an excited utterance the following foundation must be laid before getting the statement out: ○ There was a startling event that caused nervous excitement ○ The statement was made before there was time to misrepresent the event ○ The statement must be made while the person is under the stress of the event ○ The statement must relate to the event or condition that caused excitement
  • 17. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.803(1) &(2) Objection ●Hearsay Response ●The statement falls under the exception as an excited utterance. It was made following the startling event while the declarant was under the stress of the event. ● This is a spontaneous statement, it is about ____ and describes _____.
  • 18. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.803(3)– Hearsay Exception; Then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition ● A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation including a statement of intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain or bodily health, when such evidence is offered to: ○ 1. Prove the declarant’s state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation at the time or at any other time when such state is an issue in the action ○ 2. Prove or explain acts of subsequent conduct of the declarant. ● This rule allows for statements that prove the declarant’s state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation, as well as the future conduct of the declarant.
  • 19. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.803(3) ● However, this subsection does not make admissible: ○ An after-the-fact statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless such statement related to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of the declarant’s will. ■ Tomorrow meet me at the rock where we murdered John ● Past fact doesn’t come in. ○ A statement made under circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness
  • 20. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.803(3) Objection ●The question calls for hearsay ● Objection hearsay. Response ●This is admissible under the state of mind exception. The declarant’s state of mind is at issue. ●This is a statement about future action/intent.
  • 21. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.803(6)– Hearsay Exception; Records of regularly conducted activity ● A record or report is admissible under the business record exception when by testimony you establish: ○ The record was made at or near the time of the event recorded ○ The record was made with information from a person with knowledge who had a duty to furnish such information ○ The record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity ○ It was the regular practice of the business to make such record ● Doesn’t have to be a custodian. ● Stores can’t enter slip and fall reports ● What about reciepts?
  • 22. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.803(6) Objection ●The document is hearsay Response ● This falls under the business record exception. The witness laid foundation that it was made at or near the time of the event by a person with such information. They had a duty to furnish this information which is regularly kept by the business
  • 23. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.805– Hearsay within Hearsay ● Hearsay within hearsay is not excluded under § 90.802, provided each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule as provided in § 90.803 or § 90.804 ● Ex. Michael told me that he knew Michelle was going to rob the bank because she told him she was planning her getaway route. ○ Here Michelle and Michael both makes statements, so you need an exception for each person/statement in order to get this statement admitted.
  • 24. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.803 and § 90.804 ● We did not cover MOST of the exceptions in here, but this will cover MOST of the times you need them. ● A few quick tips: ○ Must believe you are doing to die and then not be available (you don’t actually have to be dead!) ○ Police report are public records in Florida, but still inadmissible by the State ○ Statements for medical treatment or diagnosis are the statements made TO the medical person, not the statements made BY the medical person.
  • 25. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.701 – Opinion testimony of lay witness ● If a witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness’s testimony about what he or she perceived may be in the form of inference and opinion when: ○ (1) The witness cannot readily, and with equal accuracy and adequacy, communicate what he or she has perceived to the trier of fact without testifying in terms of inferences or opinions and the witness’s use of inferences or opinions will not mislead the trier of fact to the prejudice of the objecting party; and ○ (2) The opinions and inferences do not require a special knowledge, skill, experience, or training.
  • 26. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.701 – Opinion testimony of a lay witness ● The rule normally is that a lay witness must testify only to facts which they observed and are not permitted to testify in terms of an opinion. ○ The case was going fast versus the car was going 70 miles per hour ● In order to give an opinion it must be “rationally based” on the witnesses perceptions, i.e. a normal person could make the same opinion based on the same facts. ○ Ex. Just because a witness did not observe the child draw on the wall, they can give an opinion if the child was the only one in the room, it looks like a kid’s drawing, they had given the child that color crayon, etc. ● Usually based upon our five senses ○ He was screaming ○ It felt hot
  • 27. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.701 Objection ●Objection, improper opinion ●Objection, this calls for an expert opinion Response ●The opinion is admissible because it is rationally based on the witnesses perception of the events and doesn’t require any expertise.
  • 28. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.703 – Opinion on ultimate issue ● Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it includes an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. ● Must balance this against invading the province of the jury. ● An example of testimony embracing the ultimate issue would be testimony regarding causation in a negligence case.
  • 29. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.604 – Lack of Personal Knowledge ● Except as otherwise provided in s. 90.702, a witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced which is sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may be given by the witness’s own testimony. ● Speculation Objection is NOWHERE in the Rules of Evidence
  • 30. Lack of Personal Knowledge vs. Speculation ● This is Jordan Ostroff evidence - it’s not a real thing, but it makes sense ● Personal Knowledge - something they CAN know but DOES NOT know ● Speculation - something they CANNOT know and DOES NOT know. ● Ask yourself this: ○ Difference between: Someone looks angry and someone is angry ○ Are they basing this on what they saw or heard? ○ Is the answer someone else’s mental state? ○ Does the witness know the answer? ○ Can the witness find the answer?
  • 31. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.604 Objection ●Lack of personal knowledge ●The witness does not have personal knowledge of the facts about which he/she is testifying Response ●The witness has said that he/she witnessed the event he/she does have personal knowledge ●The witness is not speculating
  • 32. Entering Evidence Basics 1. Let the record reflect I’m showing opposing counsel what has been marked for identification purposes as Plaintiff/Defense Exhibit ___ 2. May I approach the witness? 3. I am showing you what has been marked for identification purposes as Plaintiff/Defense Exhibit ___, do you recognize this? 4. What is it? 5. Does this fairly and accurately represent the way it looked the last time you saw it? 6. Has it been changed or altered in anyway since you last saw it? 7. Your Honor, we move into evidence what has been pre-marked as exhibit ___ as exhibit ___
  • 33. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.614 – Prior statements of witnesses ● (1) When a witness is examined concerning the witness’s prior written statement or concerning an oral statement that has been reduced to writing, the court, on motion of the adverse party, shall order the statement to be shown to the witness or its contents disclosed to him or her. ● (2) Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is inadmissible unless the witness is first afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the prior statement and the opposing party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate the witness on it, or the interests of justice otherwise require. If a witness denies making or does not distinctly admit making the prior inconsistent statement, extrinsic evidence of such statement is admissible. This subsection is not applicable to admissions of a party-opponent as defined in s. 90.803(18).
  • 34. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.614 – Prior statements of witnesses ● You can use a prior statement of a witness for two purposes: refresh their memory or impeachment ● With respect to opposing counsel, you should show them or notify them what parts of a prior statement you are referring to, i.e. page & line number ● Use refreshment or impeachment language as provided separately. ● If you are refreshing, you can refresh with ANYTHING, if you are impeaching it must be the statement of that witness (but doesn’t need to be sworn).
  • 35. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.105 – Preliminary Questions ● (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), the court shall determine preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege, or the admissibility of evidence. ● (2) When the relevancy of evidence depends upon the existence of a preliminary fact, the court shall admit the proffered evidence when there is prima facie evidence sufficient to support a finding of the preliminary fact. If prima facie evidence is not introduced to support a finding of the preliminary fact, the court may admit the proffered evidence subject to the subsequent introduction of prima facie evidence of the preliminary fact. ● (3) Hearings on the admissibility of confessions shall be conducted out of the hearing of the jury. Hearings on other preliminary matters shall be similarly conducted when the interests of justice require or when an accused is a witness, if he or she so requests.
  • 36. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.108 – Introduction of related writings or recorded statements ● (1) When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him or her at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement that in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously. An adverse party is not bound by evidence introduced under this section. ● (2) The report of a court reporter, when certified to by the court reporter as being a correct transcript of the testimony and proceedings in the case, is prima facie a correct statement of such testimony and proceedings.
  • 37. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.108 – Introduction of related writings or recorded statements ● This is generally referred to as the “Rule of Completeness” ● This rule is important if you a reading part of a document or statement, i.e. deposition testimony. ● The rule requires that if the adverse party wants the remainder of a document to be read, it shall be read when the party reading it is introducing the statement. ○ You want to read in lines 3-5 ○ The other party could ask for lines 6-7 also
  • 38. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.404(a) – Character Evidence; when admissible.- ● (a) Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is inadmissible to prove action in conformity with it on a particular occasion, except: ○ (a) Character of accused.—Evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait. ○ (b) Character of victim.— ■ 1. Except as provided in s. 794.022, evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait; ■ 2. or Evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the aggressor. ○ (c) Character of witness.—Evidence of the character of a witness, as provided in ss. 90.608-90.610.
  • 39. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.404(b) – Other crimes, wrongs, or acts. ● Similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, including, but not limited to, proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity. ● Can be ANY reason that isn’t preponderance ● Wear certain mask, get caught once.
  • 40. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.404 – Character Evidence ● Character may be an element of the claim, this is called “character in issue.” ● Character evidence is not allowed to show propensity ○ Ex. Because he stole from his mother once, he probably robbed the bank ● Character objections should go with 90.403 objections, because character evidence while probative may be prejudicial as well. ● Character for truthfulness is put at issue when the person testifies (that is always at issue!)
  • 41. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.404(a) Objection ●This is inadmissible character evidence Response ●The good character/reputation of the witness is directly at issue because it is an element of the claim ●Defense put the Defendant’s good character at issue, the door has been open to rebut that with bad character.
  • 42. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.405 – Methods of Proving Character ● REPUTATION.—When evidence of the character of a person or of a trait of that person’s character is admissible, proof may be made by testimony about that person’s reputation. ● SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF CONDUCT.—When character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, proof may be made of specific instances of that person’s conduct. ● Florida doesn’t allow opinion character ● Must be reputation in a community
  • 43. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.609 – Character of witness as impeachment ● A party may attack or support the credibility of a witness, including an accused, by evidence in the form of reputation, except that: ○ (1) The evidence may refer only to character relating to truthfulness. ○ (2) Evidence of a truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by reputation evidence.
  • 44. Fl. R. Evid. § 90.609 – Character of witness as impeachment ● Evidence of the truthful character of a witness is admissible, but must be in the form of reputation evidence. ● You can present truthful character evidence only after evidence attacking their character for truthfulness has been presented. ○ Except for criminal defendant
  • 45. Objection: Ambiguous (Vague) Question Meaning ●Questions should be asked in a form that makes the meaning of the question clear. ●If the question is vague and cannot be answered, the witness will likely misconstrue it. Response ●The question is not vague because it asks specifically…….
  • 46. Objection: Argumentative Meaning ●A question is argumentative if it is asked for the purpose of making an argument to the jury, to summarize, or comment on evidence. ●It doesn’t seek new evidence, just the counsels conclusions Response ●The question is not argumentative I’m asking the witness if this is true (if they agree, etc..)
  • 47. Objection: Asked & Answered Meaning ●If counsel repeats a question they have already asked and the witness has already answered. ●This does not apply if the question was asked on direct and again asked on cross! Response ●Opposing counsel asked the question before, I have not. ●The witness has not answered this question.
  • 48. Objection: Assumes Facts Not In Evidence Meaning ●When counsel asks a question that assumes a fact not yet proven, it suggests to the jury the truth of the fact. Response ●The fact was proven by the testimony of ______. ●The fact will be proven during the testimony of _______.
  • 49. Objection: Compound Question Meaning ●A compound question is a question that is two or more questions in one. It will likely confuse the witness. ●Ex. What time did you go to the store and did you see a girl stealing cookies? Response ●I’ll rephrase the question.
  • 50. Objection: Leading Meaning ●Leading questions suggest the answer and are typically only allowed on cross examination. ●Ex. You were going 100 miles per hour, were you not? Response ●The question does not suggest the answer, it is not leading. ●Ex. Were you at the office on January 1st?
  • 51. Objection: Narrative Meaning ●A question that asks the witness to respond with a long narrative answer Response ●We ask that you allow the witness to answer in this manner
  • 52. Objection: Non-responsive Meaning ●You are entitled to get a responsive answer. If the witness does not respond, as a last ditch effort you can strike an answer if it doesn’t answer your question. ●Tip: Ask the question a 2nd time, if the witness is still non-responsive then use this tool. Response ●The witness did answer the question.