Evidence final practice problems – 1991 – 1. Is the document admissible? Relevance – the paper would identify the first 4 letters of the license plate number of a blue car, thus making the likelihood that the car of 2HZX143 and a light-blue sedan the car that the robbers drove away in, after the robbery. Witness – does the witness have personal knowledge – here Sam was the person who wrote down the license plate number, but he did not actually see the plate or the car. He was told by Wallace that the car was a light blue sedan and told its LP number. Thus there are 2 layers of hearsay here.??? Hearsay declarant needs to have personal knowledge Sam needs to testify that it was accurately recorded, no hearsay to cover sam Authentication – agent should be able to authenticate the paper but Need to authenticate the statements – so Sam needs to be there. The first is whether the statements by Wallace are reliable and admissible. This would be a present sense impression so it is allowed. But what of the issue of Sam writing the numbers down. Since he had no personal knowledge, he would be relying on the statements by Wallace, since we know those are admissible, then Sam’s understanding and recording of the number would be admissible as to this part of hearsay. Document – is the document admissible – the problem with this issue is not that it is authentic, as Joe has authenticated it, but whether or not it can be admitted as evidence. Generlaly this would be a recorded recollection, and the record may be read into evidence, but the paper itself would not be admissible unless it was offered by the adverse party. Here this is the wrong party, so the paper would not be admissible 2. Is Joe’s testimony about the receipt admissible? Best evidence – the receipt is better than the testimony -relevant – the fact that a receipt listed Charlie as the purchaser of a firearm shows that Charlie had purchased a weapon, and that weapon was the one that was found in the motel room. This tends to show that because Charlie had a weapon that would allow the prosecution to convict, and because he had this weapon it was more likely than not that this was the weapon that was used in the robbery. -Receipt as a document – -This is inadmissible hearsay – b/c the receipt was not offered this is hearsay. 3. D can offer this first Relevant – Character – Proper in form Not pertinent – so should not have been admitted a. Kind and considerate are not allowed b. Law-abiding – some courts too broad, but usually 4. impeachement – if relevant to impeach, is it relevant for some other purpuse george lied about what he owes relevant to show bias – does more than just contradict…so the whole thing is admissible this note is not hearsay because it is a this not offered as a falsity of an act – specific act is allowed here the is for bias – he is infact biased and he just lied – 5. distinctive way of robbing bank – not for propensity – (inadmissible) wrong form (act) a. 404b – tends to show identity – b. Document being offered – the statement is out of court – so this is hearsay – i. To prove D were convicted thus hearsay, but it was admissible – Documents – Witness – 1. certified copy? Do I need best evidence? Do I need original -2. Crawford/Burton doctrine – a. Crawford – changes the law to Con clause – acting a check against hearsay evidence – i. If it is testimonial not admissible, unless they are testifying now, for a present time to cross, or if they were crossed in the past…undefined on testimonial police station investigation, what about other statements made to law enforcement – what of a crime scene statements – is that barred because it is testimonial? 1. domestic vionlance – when they can be found b. Bruton – when you have co-defendants – statement that implicates the other. And this is not a co-conspirator – recognizes that you cant cross, because it is a hearsay statements – old rule, 3. Bias – 4. impeach by character – can you have for impeach and for other factors – ex: found with drugs in suitcase crossing border – previous conviction of small bag of marijuana. Not felony – since it is not a felony – then only for impeachment – only would work if