![]() ![]() 156 (2002), to interpret slang or code words used by gang members, see State v. North Carolina courts have allowed this type of expert testimony in a wide range of cases, such as allowing a qualified witness to describe the methods, habits, and tools of the trade for drug traffickers, see State v. For example, the arresting officer in a DWI case might first offer lay testimony pursuant to Rules 401 and 602 about any relevant factual matters of which she has personal knowledge (stopping the vehicle, administering field sobriety tests, and talking to the defendant), and then offer expert testimony under Rule 702(a1) regarding the administration and results of an HGN test.īut what about when the state tenders one of the investigating officers in the case as an expert witness, based on training and experience, in a “Criminal Practices” field. Most of us will never participate in a Supreme Court confirmation hearing, but a similar type of dual testimony can arise in criminal trials in state court, and it raises some interesting issues.Īlthough we often speak in general terms about “fact witnesses” and “expert witnesses,” the state routinely elicits both lay testimony and expert testimony from a single witness during a criminal trial. Ford testified in dual roles: she was both a fact witness and a de facto expert witness. Ford also described the biological and chemical processes of memory itself, such as the way that neurotransmitters encode memories into the hippocampus. In addition to telling the Committee what she recalled, Dr. Much of her testimony recounted her recollection of that event, but some of her testimony was of a different nature. Christine Blasey Ford testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in high school. Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2010) ♨:129.Like most of the rest of the country, I followed the recent confirmation hearings for Judge (now Justice) Kavanaugh with great interest.Īs the readers of this blog already know, Dr. Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2010) ♨:112 – 124.6. Superior Court (1993) 5 C4th 704 and Weil and Brown, Cal Prac. Invasion of Privacy: California Constitution Article 1 (pdf), Section 1. Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2010) ♨:110.5 citing Gonzalez v. Testify Against Spouse: Evid.Code §§970-973.ĭisclosure may be compelled if the Court finds that the interests of justice in obtaining the information outweighs the protection. ![]() Sexual Assault Counselor-Victim: Evid.Code §§1035-1036.2. Psychotherapist-Patient: Evid.Code §§1010-1027. Official Information and Identity of Informer: Evid.Code §§1040-1047. Human Trafficking Caseworker-Victim: Evid.Code §§1038-1038.2. of California(1991) 231 CA3d 1367 (pdf),1373.Ĭonfidential Marital Communications: Evid.Code §§980- 987.ĭefendant in Criminal Case: Evid.Code §930.ĭomestic Violence Counselor-Victim: Evid.Code §§1037-1037.8. See Weil and Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2010) ♨:725 citing CCP§2025.460 (pdf)(a) and International Insurance Co. You must state the privilege or it will be deemed waived. and CEB, California Civil Discovery Practice (4th ed. Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial(TRG 2010) ♨:721 et seq. Lists of the objections can be found in Weil and Brown, Cal Prac. (1962) 58 C2d 210 (pdf),218.Īssumes facts not in evidence: West Pico Furniture v. ![]() Kilbourne(1978) 84 CA 3d 771(pdf).Īnswer is known to propounding party: Alpine Mut. Ct.(1975) 15 C3d 1 (pdf).Ĭalls for Narration or Lengthy Explanation ![]() §2017.010 (pdf).Ĭalls for Legal Reasoning: Sav-On Drugs v. OBJECTIONS TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION (CCP §2025.460)Ĭalls for Contention: Rifkind v. See CEB, California Civil Discovery Practice (4th ed. This is a form of “coaching” the witness and a protective order may need to be sought. Speaking objections which counsel explains his rationale for the objection is improper as it is usually used as a tactic to give the deponent a heads up that the area of questioning is dangerous and how he should answer. Instructing witness not to answer is improper unless objecting on grounds of privilege. Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2010) ♨:721 (citing C.C.P. Objections to the form of questions are waived if not raised at the deposition. Weil and Brown, Cal Prac. “, here is a list of proper and improper objections to deposition questions that you should also keep in the back of your legal pad. In the spirit of my most recent blog, “OBJECTION!! There’s this case that says. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |