As the witness is testifying, you or your lawyer stands up and says, “Objection, your honor” and then states your grounds. Here, the grounds are “Lack of personal knowledge. ”
Acceptable lay opinion includes opinion about size, sound, weight, distance, or manner of conduct. For example, “I thought she was tall” is acceptable lay opinion testimony. The lay witness, however, cannot purport to give scientific opinion. “I thought she was criminally insane” is unacceptable lay opinion testimony. You should move to strike testimony of that nature.
There are several exceptions to the hearsay rule. Among the more common are an excited utterance, a statement made for purposes of obtaining medical treatment,[4] X Research source a dying declaration, and statements against interest. [5] X Research source These hearsay statements are allowed because they have circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. [6] X Research source If the declarant is unavailable, then his out-of-court statements may be admitted through hearsay. 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. [7] X Research source Additionally, any statement made by a party is admissible against that party. [8] 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.
You should challenge a confession as involuntary before trial. File a Motion to Suppress. Among the factors a court will consider are: threats, promises, physical coercion, the length of the interrogation, as well as the defendant’s health, age, and intelligence. [9] X Research source The ultimate standard is whether the defendant’s free will was “overborne” by police coercion. [10] X Research source
The purpose behind this rule is to focus the jury’s attention on the main issue—what happened on this particular occasion—and to prevent the jury from rewarding good people and punishing bad people based on their character. [12] X Research source There are exceptions. For example, if in a criminal trial a defendant offers evidence that he is generally peaceful, then the government could offer evidence to rebut it. A defendant in a criminal trial may also offer evidence of a victim’s character trait (such as a violent character), which the government may also rebut. [13] X Research source
Propensity evidence may, however, be used to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. A classic example is to prove “modus operandi”; that is, a criminal’s unique way of committing a crime. If a defendant always spray-painted a house after burglarizing it, then this evidence could be introduced to prove that the defendant committed the most recent burglary where the house was also spray-painted. This evidence is admitted to show identity, not a propensity to commit burglary.
For example, you can exclude “guilt by association” evidence as unfairly prejudicial. If the government tries to introduce evidence that you hang out with drug dealers to prove that you, too, are a drug dealer, then you should move to have this evidence excluded as prejudicial.
Because you should be held liable only for what you did, and not because of your wealth, you should move to exclude this evidence.
For example, a person cannot just get up on the stand and argue that a photograph shows you hitting another car in an intersection. 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. 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 judge will ultimately determine whether the witness has provided sufficient evidence. Some documents are self-authenticating. For example, domestic records that are sealed and signed, certified copies of public records, newspapers and magazines, as well as acknowledged (notarized) documents do not require a foundation. [18] X Research source
If the defendant can find a time when the gun is not accounted for as being in police custody, then the chain of custody is broken. The defendant could move to have the evidence thrown out.
Also, any offers to pay for medical expenses may not be used at trial to establish liability for an injury. [21] X Research source Courts exclude this evidence because they want to encourage settlement negotiations. If you were worried that your offer of a settlement could be used against you in court, then you might never agree to settle.
The attorney-client privilege can be waived—and waived inadvertently. If you tell your attorney something in public and it is overhead, then the witness can testify to what you said. [23] X Research source
The communications privilege allows you to throw out any statement you made to your spouse. Although your spouse may still testify about other matters—e. g. , what he observed—he cannot testify as to what you told him. The testimonial privilege allows you to keep your spouse from testifying completely, about any matter. In federal court, however, the testifying spouse holds the privilege; that is, if she wants to testify, then you cannot stop her. [24] X Research source
Generally, to use evidence at trial, police must seize it pursuant to a valid search warrant. If police grab it without a valid warrant, you can move before trial to have the evidence suppressed. There are many exceptions to the valid warrant requirement. For example, if the warrant was defective but police relied on it in a good faith belief that it was valid, then the evidence is admissible. Furthermore, if you consent to a search then the evidence will be admissible. Evidence is also admissible if it is gathered incident to a valid arrest, was in plain view of the police officers, or was discovered while the officers were in “hot pursuit” of the suspect. Also, evidence seized by private parties (not the police) is admissible if turned over to the police.
Any statement you make could, however, be introduced to impeach you should you testify. If you allege a constitutional violation, an oral objection at trial is not enough. You should also file a pretrial motion. If you do not file a pretrial motion, then the issue could be forfeited on appeal.
