One hour later, Garner was pronounced dead. The Wall Street Journal.
Structure of the Trial and Presentation of Evidence a. Structure of the Trial-the FRE has not codified the structure.
If granted case over, Df wins. The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogation of witnesses and presenting evidence so as to 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.
Presentation of Testimony —during each stage of the trial, each side will present evidence through the testimony of witnesses, of which that presentation is likewise in stages: Direct Examination -initial presentation of witness by the party who called the witness. The proponent of the witness, subject to the FRE, can inquire about firsthand information the witness possesses related to any of the claims or defenses raised in the COA, and facts related to credibility of any witness.
Cross Examination —the opposing party can test a witnesses credibility and the reliability of the information a witness provided. Scope of Cross Examination FRE b Cross Examination should be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matter affecting the credibility of the witness.
The court may, in the exercise of discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination. Re-direct Examination—If opposition is successful in attacking credibility and reliability, and that witness was not is given an opportunity to explain during cross, the proponent may elicit an explanation during re-direct.
Re-cross Examination—is the final phase of examination, where opposition is given another opportunity to test any new information that the proponent may have brought out during direct. Elicitation of Testimony A. Competency of Witnesses Common law testimonial disqualifications for witnesses have been eliminated except for incompetency of witness due to mental disease or immaturity, and serving as judge or juror in the trial where the testimony is sought.
The presumption is that everyone is competent. Every person is competent to be a witness except as otherwise provided in these rules. However, in civil actions and proceedings, with respect to an element of a claim or defense as to which State law supplies the rule of decision, the competency of a witness shall be determined in accordance with State law.
Dead Man Statutes—intended to prevent fraudulent claims against estates of the deceased. Competency of Judge FRE The presiding judge at the trial may not testify in that trial as a witness. No objection need be made to preserve the point. A member of the jury may not testify as a witness before that jury in the trial of the case in which he is sitting as a juror.
If he is called so to testify, the opposing party shall be afforded the opportunity to object out of the presence of the jury. FRE b Inquiry into validity of verdict or indictment: Personal Knowledge Only if the witness has personal, firsthand knowledge of facts relevant to the COA may the opposition test the reliability of information elicited by the proponent on direct.
A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. This rule is subject to the provisions of FRErelating to opinion testimony by expert witnesses.
Courts at common law generally required questions eliciting testimony to be focused, calling for specific and limited answers. FRE a relaxes the specific question and answer requirement. Leading Questions Leading questions suggest the answer the questioner seeks. Loaded Questions—assume the truth of unproven facts, and are prohibited because they are too suggestive.
Exceptions to Leading Question Prohibition Courts will allow leading questions where the consequences of leading questions are not significant and the benefits, in terms of efficiency, are great, or where there is a need for leading questions to develop the testimony properly.
Cross-examination—based on reduced risk, efficiency, and the possibly an element of need; cross examination by a party with whom a witness is not aligned in interest with creates a situation where leading questions may be allowed. During an examination by a party with whom the witness is aligned, the party may use leading questions in addressing preliminary matters or undisputed facts.
Status of Witness a. A witness may qualify as an expert, but may lack knowledge of the facts that are relevant to the case, the court may allow the use of leading questions to pose hypothetical questions in which the proponent makes the relevant facts known by the expert.In what ways have our historic roots affected the manner in which criminal investigations are 2 educator answers Why should the balance between freedom of the media to obtain information during.
Criminal Investigations Past and Present Lakesha Wilson Everest University In what ways have our historic roots affected the manner in which criminal investigations are conducted in the United States today?
🔥Citing and more! Add citations directly into your paper, Check for unintentional plagiarism and check for writing mistakes. Q: In what ways have our historic roots affected the manner in which criminal investigations are conducted in the United States today?
A: The organizational structure of the Pinkerton National Detective Agency, found in by Allan Pinkerton and the first of its kind in the US, was later adopted by the FBI.
How The Oil Industry Conquered Medicine, Finance And Agriculture January 22 | From: Mercola "How Big Oil Conquered the World" is a brilliant piece of investigative journalism presented by James Corbett, revealing the immense extent to which the oil industry has shaped and .
Sensational and historic cases of murder, fraud, and betrayal have long been the focus of books, movies, and television shows. Such popular portrayals of the investigative process often misstate or distort the realities of the investigative process.