Відео

Law Professor, would you please tell us where you teach law . In addition, what motivated you to choose this specific profession. Maybe throw in some personal matters that may have contributed to your current.

One extra often-cited response for NOT TOMA is "subsequent action" trying to prove this person's re"action" Similar to 1 and 2, but has differences

plaintiff resopnse😢

bf801d

co counsel finical code cvc insurance claim at lunch

This is exactly what I needed

This guy is probably the Mock Trial Bible for teams that are just starting out As is our team :)

You are THE BEST!!! Thanks for this beautiful explanation, Professor. I love you

If you get your motion of discovery you should know what evidence they are going to use. Right?

When are you supposed to bring up prejudicial objections?

Hi, professor, can this rule apply divorce settlement communication? There are compromise offers too!

So helpful for all the diarrhea mouth disembling demons im dealing with. Thanks. I assume a statement to police on body cam used as the sole evidence to arrest someone would be good enough for impeachment and truth. Please confirm 🙏

I had a prosecutor and a judge tell me that this method is required if you are going to be impeaching a witness with the prior inconsistent statement. They said the fact that I was not using it meant that I could not cross-examine the witness. Are there any cases or rules on that?

Thank you for this! Super simple breakdown of this rule.

literally so helpful thank you

I am facing a tough deposition you just answered my main concern about rapid fire yes/no questions and if I can say yes ... But. I have a great atty. Just haven't gone to prep meetings yet. Deposition is in 10 days

Great video! I couldn't find anything on re-direct Thanks Professor Porter.

Hooray

"...but not including statement of memory or belief" is always what's gets me. Qualifying 803(3) statements can often be mixed in with conclusory statements.

👍🏽👍🏽

This was great!!! Thank you :)

So cute!

Thanks so much for your channel and videos. Truly grateful.

Thanks a lot, this sub-point was killing me. Great presentation!!!

But what does feasibility mean????

Id give anything to be at Matsumotos and on Schofield again

Thank you for a clear explanation of this exception to the rule.

Great videos but difficult to listen to with headphones. Too many "mic pops", I would suggest getting a stand alone microphone and pop filter for better audio.

As an old lawyer (who rarely practiced), I've come to believe the Rules of Evidence are key to both the law and to clear thinking. Financial investments, law, foreign policy, investigative journalism ... it all comes down to "What do we know? And, how do we know what we know?" Everybody who wants to analyze anything should at least study the Rules of Evidence, imo.

Great video... Suggestion: get a "pop filter" for your headset to mitigate the popping noises in the audio that come from your breath.

Gteat job new friend

I will use this

Great speaker! Do you have a sample motion you can share that would be helpful in illustrating these concepts?

Thank you. How to satisfy Best evidence rule, if need to mail (certified) a letter typed & printed from computer? (no handwriting or signature on letter, whole letter comes from printer). There doesn't seem to be a way to keep exactly what you send (i.e. original). Even if one sends a copy of original letter and keep original letter, then one still keep NOT what was sent mail, i.e. the copy sent by mail is now considered being "original"? Or am I understanding it wrong? Thank you!

5:11 Knowing about 0.0957 percent of anything legalistic, but having fun with language, this was amusing. If the phrase “talking into your jacket” is synonymous with “talking under your breath,” I think the appropriate word for that situation would be “MUTTERANCE.” I think “utterance” is acceptable, however archaic, in the situation of 803.2. If the students need to remember the actual phrase “utterance” for testing, I’d keep that clunky word and build onto it to facilitate memory, replacing “utterance,” with something comically visual like “an agitated ’SPUTTERANCE.’”

You are the best! Thank you so much professor.

I know this is 2 yrs old😢 but I just found this channel and I am so glad you took the time to do these videos. I had a question already lol. Say it is a criminal trail , the state vs ____, the state holds burden. If the defendant chooses to represent himself in court does the burden of proof than rest with the defendant.?

Thank you for the greaat video! Just had one question: Is it also okay to use it in cross examination? for ex) prosecutor to the defense witness: the defendant told you this --

Pls clarify what is meant by party opponent. Thank you

Very insightful

This video answered the question better than any other. Thank you. Merry Christmas!

Am I correct that some in some jurisdictions, an objection based on a failure to employ this proceedure would be called an objection to "predicate"?

What if it’s a photo of yourself or a email to the insurance company? What about screenshots?

This is such critical knowledge; offering it in this format is a public service and a truly good deed. Much Love and appreciation. There should be awards for this kind of thing.

Thank you from IU McKinney Law! If only you were my actual evidence professor

Easily the best presentation of the rules of evidence. Thank you Professor.

Can you do this on cross? For example, if I have prior statement from Bob at a Grand Jury hearing that "Jim is a liar," and then on cross I ask Bob if Jim is a liar and Bob says no, can I then use 801(d)(1)(A) to admit Bob's statement from in front of the Grand Jury both for impeachment of Bob and for the truth of the matter?

I have a question about the statement you made at 2:14 where you said, "We know we did a bunch of things wrong as the defendants in this case. We want to make it right; we want to move on and allow you to move on plaintiff. That statement can't be used." Why would that statement be inadmissible if there is no dispute? Is what you're saying that there was an initial dispute between the parties, and the defendant is now wanting to negotiate, so his/her statement of conceding is protected under rule 408?