Rules of Evidence and Objections Beginner

Jamie Olin, an attorney in Dallas, introduces the session on the rules of evidence and making objections. He emphasizes the importance of staying on mute during the presentation and encourages participants to use the chat for questions and brainstorming. The session builds on the previous one, diving deeper into the concept of evidence in legal terms, which refers to facts or information that determine the validity of a statement or document. The example of a murder case is used to illustrate how evidence can help a jury decide if the accused is indeed the murderer. Different types of evidence that could support the defendant's claim of innocence are discussed, such as eyewitness testimony, receipts, text messages, and fingerprints.

The speaker explains the significance of rules of evidence in legal proceedings, highlighting their role in preventing irrelevant and fake evidence from entering a trial. These rules ensure that trials do not drag on unnecessarily and that only authentic and relevant evidence is presented. The session also touches on the differences between civil and criminal cases in terms of evidence rules, noting that while generally the same, there are specific differences that can be found in the legal code. The concept of judicial notice is introduced, where a judge can acknowledge facts that are generally known or easily verifiable, thus not requiring additional evidence to support them.

Relevancy is emphasized as a crucial aspect of evidence in a trial. Under Texas law, evidence is considered relevant if it makes a fact more or less likely and if that fact is significant to the trial. The speaker provides examples of relevant evidence in a hypothetical murder case, such as video footage of the defendant buying a lamp used as a murder weapon, autopsy reports, and text messages indicating a conflict between the defendant and the victim. Irrelevant evidence, such as the defendant's eye color or the victim's favorite zoo animal, is also discussed to illustrate what should be excluded from a trial.

The speaker delves into the complexities of character evidence, explaining that evidence of a person's character or reputation cannot be used to prove how they acted on a specific occasion. However, there are exceptions, such as when the defendant offers evidence of their own character trait or when the defendant introduces evidence of the victim's violent tendencies to support a claim of self-defense. The importance of witnesses having personal knowledge of the events they testify about is also discussed, distinguishing between expert witnesses and lay witnesses in terms of what they can testify.

Hearsay is introduced as a challenging concept in evidence law, defined as a statement made outside of court that is offered to prove a matter asserted or implied. The speaker provides examples of hearsay and explains why it is often excluded due to its unreliability. However, several exceptions to the hearsay rule are discussed, such as present sense impression, excited utterance, statement against interest, unavailability of the declarant, and dying declarations. These exceptions allow certain hearsay statements to be admitted under specific circumstances.

The speaker discusses the process and importance of making objections during a mock trial. Objections are typically made to opposing counsel's questions rather than the witness's answers, and should be made between the question and answer for clarity. The speaker advises on when to object, suggesting that it is often strategic to object only when it significantly impacts the case. Examples of different types of objections, such as leading questions, compound questions, argumentative questions, and repetitive questions, are provided, along with guidance on how to handle them in a mock trial setting.

The speaker provides examples of specific questions that might be asked during a mock trial and the appropriate objections for each. Questions that are vague, ambiguous, compound, argumentative, or irrelevant are highlighted, along with how to object to them. The speaker also discusses the difference between objecting to questions and objecting to answers, noting that answers can be objected to as non-responsive or hearsay. The session encourages participants to practice making objections and to consider the strategic implications of when and how to object.

The speaker continues the discussion on objections by providing more examples of irrelevant and objectionable questions in a mock trial setting. Questions about a cat's name in a case where a cat is not involved are used to illustrate how to object to irrelevant questions. The speaker also explains how to handle repeated questions, hearsay, and questions that call for expert opinions or legal conclusions. The importance of making timely and relevant objections is emphasized, as is the need to understand the basis for each objection.

In the final part of the session, the speaker wraps up the discussion on objections and encourages participants to ask any remaining questions. The speaker reflects on the most common objections in mock trials, such as those related to speculation and relevance, and discusses the potential impact of not making an objection when one should have been made. The speaker also addresses questions about the jury's role in a remote mock trial setting and expresses optimism for the upcoming mock trial season despite the challenges of conducting trials remotely.