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.
@kjs-noirАй бұрын
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
@DeAngeloDowning-rl3teАй бұрын
plaintiff resopnse😢
@DeAngeloDowning-rl3teАй бұрын
bf801d
@DeAngeloDowning-rl3teАй бұрын
co counsel finical code cvc insurance claim at lunch
@kjs-noir2 ай бұрын
This is exactly what I needed
@kjs-noir2 ай бұрын
This guy is probably the Mock Trial Bible for teams that are just starting out As is our team :)
@isabelburgos45143 ай бұрын
You are THE BEST!!! Thanks for this beautiful explanation, Professor. I love you
@Charliemayne7163 ай бұрын
If you get your motion of discovery you should know what evidence they are going to use. Right?
@professorporter3 ай бұрын
A motion to compel? Most often, a party files a motion to compel when they have requested materials (discovery) that they believe they are entitled to and the opposing side refuses to turn those materials over. This is NOT an evidentiary motion
@Charliemayne7163 ай бұрын
@@professorporter well sir, while I’m not sure the exact name it’s called motion of discovery here and you get to look at whatever they are planning on using against you.
@Charliemayne7163 ай бұрын
When are you supposed to bring up prejudicial objections?
@professorporter3 ай бұрын
You object when the questioning attorney asks a question that calls for improper information including a response that is UNFAIRLY prejudicial under Rule 403
@susulewis75113 ай бұрын
Hi, professor, can this rule apply divorce settlement communication? There are compromise offers too!
@lukekoleas33783 ай бұрын
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 🙏
@ericwillison40113 ай бұрын
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?
@professorporter3 ай бұрын
Yes, it’s a specific process, based in the rules, that if done correctly, works very well in front of the jury. If the cross examining attorney deviates from the specific process, then it can fall flat or get shut down by the witness or judge.
@marleighf13353 ай бұрын
Thank you for this! Super simple breakdown of this rule.
@nataliazepeda20203 ай бұрын
literally so helpful thank you
@maureenbrown28113 ай бұрын
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
@user-im1hx1wf7o3 ай бұрын
Great video! I couldn't find anything on re-direct Thanks Professor Porter.
@bolonese93414 ай бұрын
Hooray
@Sqito14 ай бұрын
"...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.
@edadams3766 ай бұрын
👍🏽👍🏽
@ryencinski79987 ай бұрын
This was great!!! Thank you :)
@wlsmith23577 ай бұрын
So cute!
@professorporter7 ай бұрын
Now a SENIOR in high school. Crazy
@notanotherpodcast8677 ай бұрын
Thanks so much for your channel and videos. Truly grateful.
@akashgehlawat34337 ай бұрын
Thanks a lot, this sub-point was killing me. Great presentation!!!
@MihKey8 ай бұрын
But what does feasibility mean????
@professorporter8 ай бұрын
Is it possible? Are they able to do it? The famous case related to early cars with engines in the rear and the mfr said it wasn’t feasible to move the engine to the front. The proponent may be able to introduce that the mfr moved the engine, not as a subsequent remedial measure, but to show it was feasible.
@AnonymousUser-in9yn9 ай бұрын
Id give anything to be at Matsumotos and on Schofield again
@9700jb9 ай бұрын
Thank you for a clear explanation of this exception to the rule.
@JVogelLaw10 ай бұрын
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.
@andrewcowin381510 ай бұрын
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.
@professorporter10 ай бұрын
Hear, hear
@JVogelLaw11 ай бұрын
Great video... Suggestion: get a "pop filter" for your headset to mitigate the popping noises in the audio that come from your breath.
@MalouVlog600 Жыл бұрын
Gteat job new friend
@achillesalexander5327 Жыл бұрын
I will use this
@Lighthousefamily32 Жыл бұрын
Great speaker! Do you have a sample motion you can share that would be helpful in illustrating these concepts?
@stran1239 Жыл бұрын
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!
@just.joolie Жыл бұрын
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.’”
@just.joolie Жыл бұрын
PS Watching trials is my new hobby. I’m learning the lingo so I can follow along more effectively and critique more quickly.
@urjitagokhale Жыл бұрын
You are the best! Thank you so much professor.
@salemsrevenge Жыл бұрын
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.?
@professorporter Жыл бұрын
No. The burden remains with the government in a criminal case regardless of whether the defendant is represented by an attorney or proceeds pro se (represents himself).
@salemsrevenge Жыл бұрын
@@professorporter thank you for answering ! I know it is kind of a bizarre question, I actually think it was court tv (maybe law& crime) that was talking about the Darrell Brooks case and had said the burden of proof changes.. 🤨 I thought it sounded odd..great videos by the way!
@dd-xg6hm Жыл бұрын
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 --
@professorporter Жыл бұрын
Yes. The rules don’t distinguish between direct and cross. So long as it’s said by the defendant and offered by the prosecution.
@virtuousmama6089 Жыл бұрын
Pls clarify what is meant by party opponent. Thank you
@professorporter Жыл бұрын
“Party opponent” is a phase that comes from the rule and it means the other party. If you represent the plaintiff, than the defendant is the party opponent. If you rep the defendant, then the plaintiff is the party opponent.
@virtuousmama6089 Жыл бұрын
@@professorporter thank you! I figured it out after listening twice
@Toast_tea Жыл бұрын
Very insightful
@jailblazer Жыл бұрын
This video answered the question better than any other. Thank you. Merry Christmas!
@RealAustinMartin Жыл бұрын
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"?
@professorporter Жыл бұрын
You may be referring to “lacks foundation” - just keep in mind that foundation applies to a rule
@vegas9440 Жыл бұрын
What if it’s a photo of yourself or a email to the insurance company? What about screenshots?
@professorporter Жыл бұрын
Same application of the rule. We want the photo, email or screenshot, instead of testimony about the content of those items
@RealAustinMartin Жыл бұрын
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.
@professorporter Жыл бұрын
I totally agree
@sterlingsatterfield522 Жыл бұрын
Thank you from IU McKinney Law! If only you were my actual evidence professor
@abhinavgarg6487 Жыл бұрын
Easily the best presentation of the rules of evidence. Thank you Professor.
@cballer77 Жыл бұрын
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?
@professorporter Жыл бұрын
Yes. Of course. Impeachment by prior inconsistent statement typically occurs on cross
@MustafaAli-ey5oy Жыл бұрын
How I do contac professor port to asked questions
@Takifun Жыл бұрын
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?
@professorporter Жыл бұрын
Yes. There was a “dispute” and the statement is protected under Rule 408.