Definition: A system of rules controlling the flow of information to the fact-finder in an adversary proceeding.
-Rules that control flow of information from the past, presented in the present to help the jury decide the case.
CONTROL BY THE COURT
© Rule 102. Purpose and Construction
These rules shall be construed to secure fairness in administration, elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay, and promotion of growth and development of the law of evidence to the end that the truth may be ascertained and proceedings justly determined.
Purpose 102:
-fair administration
-reduce expense
-reduce delay
-promote growth
-find the truth
-justly determine
Values and Interest Reflected:
1.Relevancy
2.Reliability
3. Policy
a. Social
b. Systematic/Institutional
© Rule 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
(1) unfair prejudice,
(2) confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or
(3) considerations of undue delay waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
© Rule 611. Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation
(a) Control by Court: The court (judge) controls the order and style of testimony
(1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth,
(2) avoid needless consumption of time, and
(3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.
* Court has authority on its own motion to limit the time for presentation of evidence, even over the objection of both parties. Based on inherent authority; rules 102, 403, 611(a).
* Lawyers and public have different interest in proceedings [wining v. resolving dispute]
Common Objections covered by 611(a): Procedural ObjectionsàSITE RULE ON TEST
Narrative Response: Q “What happened on the day of the murder?”
-Turning control over to the W. This waste time. Gives W leeway to things that don’t matter.
Non-Responsive: Q “Did you see the D the night of the murder?” A “Yes. He had a lot to drink and was very angry and abusive.”
-The original question asked by the examining atty was not objectionable; however the response by the witness extends beyond the specific question asked by the examining atty’s question.
Assumes Facts not in Evidence: [assume no one testified that D was drinking on the night of the murder]Q “Did you see the D at the bar the night of the murder?”A “Yes”Q “After the D had a few drinks, did you see the D leave the bar?”
-Question asserts facts that have not been established at trial, the question is objectionable b/c it brings to the attention of the jury facts that are not in evidence.
Compound Question: Q “Di
ading questions should NOT be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to (1) develop the witness’ testimony. Ordinarily leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls a (2) hostile witness (3) adverse (opposing) party, or a (4) witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions.
-Leading Question: Is a question that suggests the preferred answer. Puts the examiners words in the witness’s mouth. (Ex: Isn’t it true that you locked the door when you left the house?”)
-Normally leading questions should not be permitted on DE unless necessary to develop testimony on preliminary (unimportant) matters.
– Leading Questions are allowed on X-examination when a hostile W, adverse (opposing) party, or W identified w/ an adverse party. In Direct Examination of a party’s own W, they are only allowed to “develop” the testimony.
Rational for Not being allowed on DE but allowed on XE: DE W is more likely to follow the lead of examiner (do a dance they both know). XE has challenges and differences of opinionàW is less likely to be lead.
-GR: No leading question on direct, Okay to ask leading question on XE
