Some documents are self-authenticating.The judge will ultimately determine whether the witness has provided sufficient evidence. If a witness fails to make these connections, then she has failed to lay a proper foundation, and the evidence may be excluded by the court. The witness must first establish: that the photograph is actually of the intersection in which the accident occurred how she knows that it is the intersection (e.g., she drives through it daily), and how she knows the day and time the photograph was taken. For example, a person cannot just get up on the stand and argue that a photograph shows you hitting another car in an intersection.This means that the person offering the evidence must produce testimony sufficient to prove that the item is what the party claims it is. A document cannot be entered into evidence unless someone lays a foundation for it. Move to strike evidence that lacks a proper foundation. X Research source For example, if you admitted to your neighbor that you were responsible for hitting the plaintiff with your car, then your neighbor can repeat your statement in court. Additionally, any statement made by a party is admissible against that party.If the statement was given during another trial or proceeding under oath, and if the statement was subject to cross examination at that time, then it may be admitted into evidence. If the declarant is unavailable, then his out-of-court statements may be admitted through hearsay.X Research source These hearsay statements are allowed because they have circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. Among the more common are an excited utterance, a statement made for purposes of obtaining medical treatment, X Research source a dying declaration, and statements against interest. There are several exceptions to the hearsay rule.A classic example of hearsay would be if someone testified that they heard something somebody had done, but didn’t see it. Because a witness must have personal knowledge of an event he testifies to, X Research source you can often get hearsay evidence thrown out. Hearsay is a term for testimony in court from a witness who does not have personal knowledge of the events that they are testifying to instead, they were told the information by someone else (the “declarant”). Military Rule of Evidence 609 permits proof of convictions involving dishonesty.Move to strike hearsay evidence. Because they are subject to cross-examination, the statements are not hearsay under Military Rule of Evidence 801 (d)(1)(A). In other words, a copy of the statement can be provided to the jury. Sworn statements subject to cross-examination can sometimes be introduced into evidence. The point, however, is that it's one more tool in defense counsel's arsenal. The application of the rule can become more complicated when dealing with hearsay objections. Defense counsel may want to present evidence from other sources that she was not drunk - contradicting her testimony. A simple example might include testimony from a witness that she was drunk. The rules of evidence do not specifically discuss impeachment by contradiction. They may not always have extensive experience in criminal law. Military criminal law practitioners on active duty come from a wide range of backgrounds. This is one of the reasons that civilian counsel can be valuable. Members of the firm have even encountered judges that were unfamiliar with impeachment by contradiction. One of the least well-known military impeachment techniques is impeachment by contradiction. Under rules 404 (a) and 608 (a), counsel can also introduce evidence of a witness's character or reputation for being untruthful. This rule does permit extrinsic evidence to show bias.Įxtrinsic evidence could also be admissible under 404(b) to show things like motive or plan. One of the most powerful rules is 608 (c). For instance, if the witness makes a sweeping denial of wrongdoing - the door may be open to extrinsic evidence. Extrinsic evidence of those acts is not permitted under this rule.Įven though 608 (b) does not permit extrinsic evidence, there may be other rules that permit the introduction of the evidence. That rule permits counsel to ask questions about specific acts of the witness that goes to their credibility or character for truthfulness. The military rules generally permit impeachment through the following techniques:Įvidence of specific acts relevant to a witness's credibility is governed by Military Rule of Evidence 608 (b). The impeachment of government witnesses, of course, is always going to be an important part of any trial strategy. The Knowledge of the Military Rules of Evidence is critical for any attorney practicing in a court-martial. IMPEACHING WITNESS UNDER THE MILITARY RULES OF EVIDENCE
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |