Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 74


1. How lawsuits begin 2. Cause of Action 3. Motions 4. How you plead a case 5. Memorandums 6. isco!ery

". How you pro!e a case #. How you mo!e t$e court %. &urisdiction ' (enue 1). *reparing for Hearings or +rial 11.,ffensi!e -trategies 12. efensi!e -trategies

13. Common +raps 14. .ssential Court /oom ,b0ections 15. 1egal /esearc$ 16. -ample Cases 1".1egal +erms 1#.Miscellaneous +opics This is a work in progress sheet for those who can not afford an attorney or want to know how an attorney should proceed in your case.

2$et$er it3s t$e $ig$ cost of lawyers3 fees or growing distrust of lawyers in general4 t$ere is a mounting trend t$ese days for more people to fig$t wit$out a lawyer. +$ose w$o 5now 6How to 2in in Court6 are winning. +$ose w$o don3t are losing. +$e American 7ar Association 8A7A9 reports 6): of t$e public can3t afford a lawyer. 2): simply don3t want to spend t$e money. 5): 0ust don3t trust lawyers; <et = of all court proceedings in!ol!e at least one pro se party. +oo many pro se people are losing ... needlessly; .!er wonder w$y you were ne!er taug$t anyt$ing about court procedure or t$e rules of e!idence in your ta>?supported sc$ools@ 2$o benefits from your legal ignorance@ <ou guessed it. 1awyers; Most pro se people 5now not$ing about t$e official /ules of .!idence t$at control t$e 0udge and all parties and t$eir lawyers. Most pro se people 5now not$ing about t$e official /ules of *rocedure t$at control t$e 0udge and all parties and t$eir lawyers. Most pro se people $a!e no idea w$at 6due process6 really is. Most pro se people can3t recogniAe t$e opposing lawyer3s dirty tric5s. Most pro se people assume w$at 6admissible e!idence6 is and don3t 5now w$at stuff isn3t. Most pro se people draft t$eir pleadings and motions incorrectly ? usually wit$ far too many words; Most pro se people don3t 5now w$y it3s !ital to write proposed orders for t$e 0udge to sign. Most pro se people don3t 5now w$y4 w$en4 or $ow to ma5e effecti!e ob0ections in court. Most pro se people don3t understand w$at facts are critical to winning a case and w$at facts are of no conseBuence. Most pro se people muddy t$e legal waters wit$ court?confusing insignificance. Most pro se people don3t 5now $ow to find and cite controlling appellate opinions in support of t$eir motions. Most pro se people don3t arrange in ad!ance of e!ery proceeding to $a!e a court stenograp$er present4 so t$ey can control t$e 0udge. Most pro se people waste !aluable court time wit$ non?essentials4 fail to appreciate t$e needs of ot$ers w$o $a!e ot$er problems to bring before t$e court and4 as a conseBuence4 tend to ma5e 0udges dread pro se cases and $ate pro se people.

1awsuits come down to a simple process. +$e following grap$ s$ows $ow a lawsuit progresses. Cotice t$e t$ree bo>es CA+ 4 Complaint 4Answer ' +rial. Complaint Answer +rial +$e case begins w$en t$e plaintiff or prosecutor complains. +$e defendant t$en $as an opportunity to answer. +$e real fig$t is in t$e disco!ery process ... not at trial as +( leads you to belie!e;

Dnow t$e 6 types of lawsuit complaints. .!ery lawsuit starts wit$ a complaint. +$e plaintiff in t$e c$art sues efendant A and efendant 7. efendant 7 counter?claims against *laintiff. efendant A cross?claims against efendant 7. efendant 7 counter?cross?claims against efendant A. efendant A files a t$ird?party complaint against +$ird *arty efendant. +$ird?*arty efendant counter?claims against efendant A.

.!ery winnable case can be won before trial. All you need to 5now is $ow to use a $andful of tools effecti!ely. *roper pleadings. .!idence disco!ery tools. Motions and memoranda. Courtroom ob0ections. *leadings frame t$e case and tell t$e court w$at t$e fig$t is about. .!idence pro!es t$e facts alleged. Motions 6mo!e6 t$e court to act. Courtroom ob0ections put t$e 0udge on notice $e will be appealed if $e rules against you;

+$ere are two 829 5inds of law; +$e first 5ind is 6substanti!e law6. 1aw t$at determines t$e outcome of a case based on admissible e!idence. +$e second 5ind we call 6procedural law6. /ules of court t$at determine w$at e!idence will be admitted4 w$o gets to tal54 w$at issues will be $eard4 etc. 1osers rus$ into court demanding t$e 0udge to enforce substanti!e law in t$eir fa!or4 but t$ey don3t 5now t$e first t$ing about t$e rules of court or $ow to use t$em to get t$eir way. Et3s li5e $olding a winning $and in a game of cards but not 5nowing $ow to tactically apply t$e rules of t$e game to win. Et doesn3t matter if you $a!e 6t$e law on your side6 if you don3t 5now $ow to use t$e rules of court to win. +$ose w$o 5now $ow to use t$e rules tactically do win consistently;

Pro se people often do not get justice !"#$ 1et3s e>amine a few factsF
Most pro se people don3t 5now t$e rules. Most pro se people don3t 5now $ow to pre!ent t$e lawyer on t$e ot$er side from playing tric5s wit$ t$e rules. Most pro se people ma5e assumptions about w$at is 6admissible e!idence6 and stuff t$at isn3t. Most pro se people don3t 5now $ow to draft t$eir pleadings or motions properly. Most pro se people don3t 5now w$y it3s important to write proposed orders for t$e 0udge to sign. Most pro se people don3t 5now w$y4 w$en4 or $ow to ma5e effecti!e ob0ections in court. Most pro se people don3t understand w$at facts are critical to winning a case and w$at facts are of no conseBuence but only muddy t$e waters wit$ court?confusing insignificance. Most pro se people don3t 5now w$y it3s so !itally important to cite controlling appellate cases in support of t$eir pre?trial and trial motions. Most pro se people don3t 5now $ow to arrange for a written transcript to be made of all proceedings before t$e court4 so t$ey can control t$e 0udge. Most pro se people waste !aluable court time wit$ non?essentials4 fail to appreciate t$e needs of ot$ers w$o $a!e t$eir own problems to bring before t$e court and4 as a conseBuence4 tend to ma5e 0udges dread pro se cases.

+$ose w$o don3t lose ... consistently; +$e following are of t$ings <,G must do to win. raft proper pleadings wit$ all fact elements ,btain all necessary e!idence before trial Ma5e effecti!e oral motions raft effecti!e written motions Gse online legal researc$ raft compelling memoranda Ensure a written record of all proceedings ,b0ect promptly to all errors of opponent ,b0ect promptly to all errors of 0udge /enew ob0ections to all un?cured errors of 0udge Deep your opponent3s e!idence out Het your e!idence in -top opponent from proposing false orders ,ffer to draft all orders -top opponent3s lawyer from testifying !ord !%r & T"e 'A! of t"e C%se( .!ery case is won or lost on only two 829 t$ings; +$e Admissible .!idence and +$e 1aw of t$e Case <ou don3t need to 5now 6e!ery law6 e!er written; <ou 0ust need to 5now 6t$e law of t$e case6 ... your case; Consider t$e fellow piling t$ings in t$e balance s$own $ere. Emagine $e is 6building $is case6. He doesn3t $a!e a great number of t$ings on $is side. He $as a wee bit more t$an t$e ot$er side4 and t$at3s all it ta5es to win; <ou may as54 6How can a pro se litigant win against someone wit$ a lawyer@6 +$e answer is simple; <ou don3t need to 5now e!eryt$ing lawyers 5now; <ou only need to 5nowF +$e law of your case and How to use t$e rules to force t$e court to admit your e!idence and enter t$e orders you see5. +$e only 6law6 you need to 5now is t$e law t$at affects your case; ,nce you 5now t$e law of your case is4 t$e rest is simply con!incing t$e court t$at t$e law of t$e case is w$at you say it is4 and <ou $a!e more admissible e!idence of t$e facts t$at 6fit6 t$e law Iirst t$ere is a Complaint4 a summons is gi!en by t$e court cler5. A summons is ser!ed to t$e opposing counsel. Iile original complaint and a summons and $a!e it ser!ed. Ef you dont $a!e it ser!ed 4 t$e &udge can drop t$e case for lac5 of inpersonae. En some 0urisdictions t$e commencement of a lawsuit is done by filing a summons4 claim form andJor a complaint. +$ese documents are 5nown as pleadings4 t$at set fort$ t$e alleged wrongs committed by t$e defendent wit$ a demand for relief. En ot$er 0urisdictions t$e action is commenced by ser!ice of legal process by deli!ery of t$ese documents on t$e defendent by a process ser!erK t$ey are only filed wit$ t$e court subseBuently wit$ an affida!it from t$e process ser!er t$at t$ey $ad been gi!en to t$e defendent8s9 according to t$e rules of ci!il procedure. <ou $a!e to gi!e a copy to ot$er side4 Ef your not an attorney you can do Certific%te of Ser)ice. (erification is w$en you sign it. uring t$e flurry of motions a defendant can a!oid answering t$e complaint lawsuit by many met$ods. *otion to dis+iss & f%ilure to st%te % c%use of %ction, or out of jurisdiction , -rong court *otion to Stri.e & so+e portion is sc%ndelous or i+pertenent *otion for % +ore Definite St%te+ent & co+pl%int is %+/iguous or )%gue Ef complaint is well pleaded it will $a!e a number of complaints numbered one by one.

efendent will answer complaint allegations 4 one allegation at a time separately admitting or denying eac$ allegation. Ef you dont 5now or understand t$e Buestion you put4 wit$out 5nowledge. +$ere are also affirmati!e defenses. +$ey will be e>plained later on in t$is document. efendant can also answer wit$ a counter? claim4 w$ere t$e denfendant counter sues . Cross claim sue a co?defendant. Answer answers t$e complaint. isco!ery is t$e 5ey to getting t$e law in record. If #ou +ust "ire % l%-#er( Dnow w$at t$e lawyer s$ould do. on3t pay for incompetence or laAiness. on3t let your lawyer cheat you; Dnow $ow to demand effecti!e legal ser!ice; If #ou c%n0t %fford % l%-#er( Iorce t$e court to protect your rig$ts. raft proper pleadings. Het e!idence in t$e record. Ma5e effecti!e courtroom ob0ections. Mo!e t$e court to get w$at you want;

1 Ho- do l%-suits /egin $

1aw suits begin wit$ t$e filing of a complaint in t$e proper court. +$e person filing t$e suit is often referred to as t$e plaintiff K t$e person or entity against w$om t$e case is filed is often

referred to as t$e defendant . En some areas of law4 suc$ as family court4 t$e person filing t$e complaint is t$e petitioner 4 and t$e person against w$om t$e case is filed is t$e respondent. +$e complaint states t$e plaintiff3s !ersion of t$e facts4 t$e legal t$eory under w$ic$ t$e case is broug$t 8negligence4 for e>ample94 and as5s for certain damages or ot$er relief. +$e plaintiff also files wit$ t$e court cler5 a reBuest t$at a summons 8or notice9 be issued to t$e defendant. En many 0urisdictions4 t$e summons will be ser!ed by a deputy s$eriff or special process ser!er. En ot$er 0urisdictions4 it may be ser!ed by mail. Et notifies t$e defendant t$at a lawsuit $as been filed against $im or $er. After being notified4 t$e defendant $as a certain period of time to file an answer admitting or

denying t$e allegations made in t$e complaint. 21 & THE 'A! O3 THE CASE +$e law of t$e case is usually !ery simple; Co matter w$at 5ind of case yours is4 if you3ll trust me for 0ust a moment 8and c$ec5 me on t$is9 you3ll find t$at e!ery lawsuit turns on w$at we lawyers call 6t$e law of t$e case6. .!ery last one of t$em. .!ery single one; .!ery foreclosure case turns 8win or lose9 on a !ery few legal principles t$at control t$e outcome of foreclosure ? t$e rig$ts of t$e lender !ersus t$e rig$ts of t$e borrower. 2e attorneys call t$ese principles 6t$e law of t$e case6 of foreclosure. Et doesn3t matter $ow big t$e ban5 or lender is. Et doesn3t matter $ow little t$e borrower is. +$e law of t$e case is t$e law of t$e case *./E, ; +$e law of t$e case controls t$e outcome for t$ose w$o 5now $ow to use t$e rules of court 8e!idence and procedure9 to pro!e w$at t$e law reBuires. Automobile negligence4 contract disputes4 malpractice4 slander4 false imprisonment ... w$ate!er a case is about4 you3ll find 6t$e law of t$e case6 is simple and usually easy to find. +$is course e!en s$ows you $ow to use online legal researc$ to find t$e law of your case; <ou don3t need to 5now e!ery law t$ere is to win a simple contract dispute. +$e law of t$e case in a contract dispute is usually no more t$an a few appellate court opinions and per$aps a statute or two at most. ,nce you 5now $ow to find and can cite t$e official aut$orities t$at state t$e law of t$e case of contracts4 you3re $alfway $ome; +$e rest of t$e business of winning is simply using t$e rules to 819 allege w$at t$e law of t$e case reBuires4 and 829 pro!e w$at you3!e alleged ... w$et$er you3re a plaintiff bringing t$e case or a defendant trying to a!oid t$e line of fire;

Using On&'ine 'eg%l Rese%rc" Iind t$e 1aw t$at Controls t$e &udge; ,t$erwise4 you cannot $ope to win; <ou cannot win wit$out citing 6legal aut$ority6. <ou cannot cite 6legal aut$ority6 if you don3t 5now $ow to find it. +$e 0udge is not 6legal aut$ority6. &udges are reBuired to obey 6legal aut$ority6. Ho tell a 0udge your personal opinions about t$e law and $ow you t$in5 $e s$ould rule4 and see $ow far it gets you;

+$e only opinions t$at count in court are written opinions of appellate court 0ustices. <our opinions count for not$ing in court. Control t$e 0udge wit$ 6legal aut$ority6 by researc$ing and citing appellate court opinions. Controlling 0udges is w$at wins cases; <our opponent will cite legal aut$orities. <ou must do t$e same ... if you want to win. 1earn $ow to find and cite legal aut$orities.

24 & THE RU'ES O3 E5IDENCE AND PROCEDURE Cow assume you3!e found t$e law of t$e case t$at fits t$e facts of your lawsuit. <ou $a!e t$e official citations t$at command !ictory for you EI you allege and pro!e w$at t$e law of t$e case reBuires. +$is is w$ere t$e rules of e!idence and procedure come into play ... and t$ese are incredibly easy to learn; 1et3s say plaintiff is coming after you to foreclose on your $ome. +$e first t$ing you do is find t$e law of t$e case t$at will control t$e outcome in your state. <ou now 5now w$at must be alleged by t$e plaintiff and pro!en by t$e plaintiff in order for t$e plaintiff to win. <ou also now 5now w$at you must allege in affirmati!e defenses and w$at you need to do wit$ disco!ery and motions to pro!e t$e plaintiff cannot meet t$e burden of t$e law. +$is stuff is really easy once you see $ow t$e separate parts fit toget$er; <ou $a!e tremendous power ... once you 5now $ow t$e game is played to win; Ef you start to offer e!idence and4 before you can get it before t$e court4 t$e ot$er side ob0ects and t$e 0udge sustains your opponent3s ob0ection4 you must mo!e t$e court to allow you to ma5e clear on t$e record w$at your e!idence was going to be and w$at it would tend to pro!e;

*%.ing %n offer of proof .>pect your opponent to try to stop you. 7e prepared to ma5e an offer of proof immediately ... or ris5 losing needlessly; An offer of proof s$ows t$e court on t$e record w$at t$e offered e!idence is and w$at t$e e!idence tends to pro!e Iailure to get e!idence admitted is fatal; Ef you don3t get your e!idence admitted and don3t ma5e an offer of proof4 you3ll $a!e not$ing to appeal if you lose; Ef you don3t ma5e an offer of proof4 t$e record will not s$ow t$e appellate court w$at t$e e!idence would $a!e been. +$ere3ll be not$ing in t$e record for t$e appellate court to re!iew; Appellate courts will not e>amine e!idence t$at wasn3t made part of t$e record at t$e trial le!el. <ou can3t introduce

e!idence for t$e first time on appeal. L1 ? All lawsuits turn on t$e law of t$e case. L2 ? All lawsuits are won 8or lost9 by cle!er 8or clumsy9 use of t$e rules of court to cite t$e law of t$e case and pro!e t$e facts. +$at3s all t$ere is to lawsuits ? e!ery one of t$em; -adly4 too many people ne!er disco!er t$e power to win t$at3s t$eirs. +$erefore4 e!il people w$o 5now $ow to find t$e law of t$e case and use t$e rules of court ta5e ad!antage of t$em; T"e Burden of Proof <ou must understand w$o $as t$e burden of proof ... and w$y it matters; Ef you3re being sued4 t$e ot$er side $as t$e burden of proof. Ef t$e ot$er side files a motion4 t$ey $a!e t$e burden of proof. 7ut4 sometimes t$e burden s$ifts bac5?and?fort$. Kno-ing -"o "%s t"e /urden is critic%l on3t be !ictimiAed by lawyers tric5ing you into t$in5ing t$e burden is yours4 ma5ing you struggle to 6dispro!e6 a fact or t$e application of law ... w$en t$e burden is not on you; +$e burden is always on t$e party asserting a fact or law to pro!e w$at $e asserts. Et3s ne!er your 0ob to dispro!e w$at $e asserts; Many cases are won by simply forcing t$e court to reBuire t$e opponent to 6put up or s$ut up6. +$in5 $ow t$is can be applied to foreclosure or credit card cases; A credit lender asserts $is alleged debtor owes4 and far too often t$e alleged debtor spins $is w$eels trying pro!e $e doesn3t owe ... instead of forcing t$e creditor to pro!e w$at $e claims or be dismissed; Dnowing $ow to s$ift t$e burden is power to win; 2$y be tric5ed by ot$er members of my profession@

4 C%uses of Action
Cause of Action is a set of facts sufficient to 0ustify a rig$t to sue to obtain money4 property4 or t$e enforcement of a rig$t against anot$er party. +$e term also refers to t$e legal t$eory upon w$ic$ a plaintiff brings suit 8suc$ as breac$ of contract4 battery4 or false imprisonment9. +$e legal document w$ic$ carries a claim is called a Complaint in G.-. federal practice and in many G.-. states. Et can be any communication notifying t$e party to w$om it is addressed of an alleged fault w$ic$ resulted in damages from w$ic$ it originates4 often e>pressed in amount of money t$e recei!ing party s$ould payJreimburse. How do you pursue a Cause of Action@ *laintiff pleads or alleges facts in a complaint4 t$e pleading t$at initiates a lawsuit. A cause of action generally encompasses bot$ t$e legal t$eory 8t$e legal wrong t$e plaintiff claims to $a!e suffered9 and t$e remedy 8t$e relief a court is as5ed to grant9. ,ften t$e facts or circumstances t$at entitle a person to see5 0udicial relief may create multiple causes of action. Alt$oug$ it is fairly straig$tforward to file a -tatement of Claim in most 0urisdictions4 if it is not done properly4 t$en t$e filing party may lose $is case due to simple tec$nicalities. T"ere %re % nu+/er of specific c%uses of %ction, including( contract?based actions statutory causes of action torts suc$ as assault4 battery4 in!asion of pri!acy4 fraud4 slander4 negligence4 intentional infliction of emotional distress suits in eBuity suc$ as un0ust enric$ment and Buantum meruit. +$e points a plaintiff must pro!e to win a gi!en type of case are called t$e 6elements6 of t$at cause of action. &udge may sanction you 4 you may pay attorneys fee3s if you do not $a!e a !alid case. Cot all wrongs $a!e a remedy. 2$en you t$in5 you $a!e a CAG-. ,I AC+E,C element or elements t$at are for t$at particular case t$e you can sue.


Cl%i+ of negligence t"e ele+ents %re(

+$e 8e>istence of a9 duty 7reac$ 8of t$at duty9 *ro>imate cause 8by t$at breac$9 amages.

Iri!olous lawsuits will only $urt you. Ma5e sure you follow /ule 114part 7 of t$e Iederal Ci!il *rocedures w$ic$ statesF /epresentation to t$e Court. 7y *resenting to t$e court a pleading written motion 4 or ot$er paper ??w$et$er by signing4 filing 4 submitting 4 or later ad!ocationg it ? an attorney or unrepresented party certifies t$at to t$e best of t$e person3s 5nowledge4 information4 and belief 4 formed after an inBuiry reasonable under t$e circumstancesF 819 it is not being presented for any improper purpose4 suc$ as to $arass4 cause unnecessary delay4 or needlessly increase t$e cost of litigationK 829 t$e claims 4 defenses and ot$er legal contentions are warranted by e>isting law or by nonfri!olous argument for e>tending4 modifying 4 or re!ersing e>isting law or for e>tablis$ing new lawK 839 t$e factual contentions $a!e e!identiary support or4 if specifically so identified4 will li5ely $a!e e!identiary support after a reasonable opportunity for furt$er in!estigation or disco!eryK and 849 t$e denials of factual contentions are warranted on t$e e!idence or 4 if specifically so identified 4 are reasonably based on belief or lac5 of information.

7 *otions
2$at is a motion@ A motions is a formal reBuest made to a 0udge for an order or 0udgment. Motions are made in court all t$e time for many purposesF to continue 8postpone9 a trial to a later date4 to get a modification of an order4 for temporary c$ild support4 for a 0udgment4 for dismissal of t$e opposing party3s case4 for a re$earing4 for sanctions 8payment of t$e mo!ing party3s costs or attorney3s fees94 or for doAens of ot$er purposes. Most motions reBuire a written petition4 a written brief of legal reasons for granting t$e motion 8often called 6points and aut$orities694 written notice to t$e attorney for t$e opposing party and a $earing before a 0udge. Howe!er4 during a trial or a $earing4 an oral motion may be permitted. Motions are not pleadings but are reBuests for t$e 0udge to ma5e a legal ruling. -ome of t$e most common pre?trial motions includeF Motion to isco!er. A motion by w$ic$ one party see5s to gain information from t$e ad!erse party. Motion to ismiss. +$is motion as5s t$e court to dismiss t$e suit because t$e suit doesnMt $a!e a legally sound basis4 e!en if all t$e facts alleged are pro!en true. Motion for -ummary &udgment 8sometimes called motion for summary disposition9. +$is motion as5s t$e court for a 0udgment on t$e merits of t$e case before t$e trial. Et is properly made w$ere t$ere is no dispute about t$e facts and only a Buestion of law needs to be decided. Ef a complaint does not allege facts sufficient to support e!ery element of a claim4 t$e court4 upon motion by t$e opposing party4 may dismiss t$e complaint for failure to state a claim for w$ic$ relief can be granted. +$e defendant to a cause of action must file an 6Answer6 to t$e complaint in w$ic$ t$e claims can be admitted or denied 8including denial on t$e basis of insufficient information in t$e complaint to form a response9. +$e answer may also contain counterclaims in w$ic$ t$e 6Counterclaim *laintiff6 states its own causes of action. Iinally4 t$e answer may contain affirmati!e defenses. Most defenses must be raised at t$e first possible opportunity eit$er in t$e answer or by motion or are deemed wai!ed. A few defenses4 in particular a court3s lac5 of sub0ect matter 0urisdiction4 need not be plead and may be raised at any time. 2$y bot$er struggling to pro!e ob!ious facts@ .!ery court 8state or federal9 pro!ides a met$od for getting around t$e necessity of pro!ing ob!ious

facts. +$is met$od is called 6&udicial Cotice6. +$e process is simple. <ou s$ould always use it w$en you can; <ou can ma5e opponents3 legal bullets bounce off your c$est once t$e court ta5es 0udicial notice of an ob!ious fact4 because t$e court3s order settles t$e issue ... *./E, ; ,b!ious facts don3t $a!e to be 6pro!en64 if you can get t$e court to enter an order ta5ing 0udicial notice of t$em. <ou can mo!e t$e court to enter an order ta5ing 0udicial notice in writing or you can mo!e t$e court by !oice in t$e courtrooom. 5oc%l +otions %re c%lled ore tenus +otions 2ritten motions are always best 8because t$ey become part of t$e written record of t$e case wit$out paying a court reporter to pro!ide a transcript9 but if you3re caug$t at a $earing and need to do so4 ma5e an ore tenus motion 8i.e.4 a spo5en motion9 and be prepared to bac5 it up by s$owing t$at t$e fact you want noticed is 6ob!ious6. Ef was nearly 2" years ago w$en E was 0ust beginning my career as a licensed attorney. My client was suing $er former landlord to reco!er $er security deposit. +$e mean old landlord claimed s$e damaged $is property by cutting down a tree in t$e bac5yard. +$e tree was a 7raAilian *epper tree4 a nuisance plant $ere in Ilorida. +$e tree is related to poison i!y4 poison oa54 poison sumac. Et3s really more of a bus$ t$an a tree4 t$oug$ t$ey grow Buite large $ere in t$e -uns$ine -tate. +$e Gni!ersity of Ilorida reports some people e>press respiratory problems associated wit$ t$e bloom period of t$e tree4 w$ile ot$ers suffer from dermatitis after contact. +$e -tate of Ilorida $as e!en de!eloped a detailed management plan for t$e pest plant4 including creation of a 7raAilian *epper +as5 Iorce; -o4 $ere E was arguing for my client at a $earing to get $er deposit bac5 from $er stupid4 greedy landlord loo5ing to ma5e a fast buc5 by playing on t$e ignorance of ot$ers. ,f course E $ad a court reporter wit$ me4 ta5ing down e!ery word said by me4 my client4 t$e landlord4 and t$e 0udge. +$at3s w$y E won more often t$an ot$ers. Ma5ing a record is essential to !ictory 8e!en t$oug$ it does cost a bit to pay t$e court reporter to attend9.

My client and E came to t$e $earing wit$ p$otograp$s of t$e inside of t$e $ouse s$e3d been renting to s$ow $ow s$e $ad re?painted4 cleaned t$e o!en4 scrubbed t$e floors4 and left t$e place immaculate. +$at3s w$at we t$oug$t t$e landlord3s defense wasF t$at s$e3d left t$e place a mess. 2$en E saw $er p$otograp$s 8and t$e fact t$at $er friend $ad ta5en t$e pictures4 a friend we broug$t wit$ us to testify to t$e accuracy of t$e pictures4 if necessary9 it seemed ob!ious to me we would win $ands down. +$en t$e landlord starts w$ining about $is lo!ely tree in t$e bac5yard and $ow my client $ad so rudely and wit$out $is permission cut it to t$e ground and dragged t$e branc$es out to t$e street for t$e city tras$ collectors to ta5e t$em away. 7y some stro5e of Hod3s Hrace E3d recently read of t$e 7raAilian *epper and $ealt$ problems it was causing4 so E simply said4 6<our $onor4 E mo!e t$e court for an order ta5ing 0udicial notice t$at t$e 7raAilian *epper $as been ad0udged a nuisance plant in Ilorida and t$erefore $as no commercial !alue to 0ustify t$e landlord3s wit$olding my client3s security deposit.6 2$at $appened ne>t was wonderful. +$e 0udge smiled4 e!idently pleased at t$e opportunity E presented for $im to tell us w$at $e 5new of t$is pes5y bus$. He leaned bac5 in $is giant leat$er? bac5ed c$air and actually put $is $ands be$ind $is $ead as if $e were going to tell a long story to $is grandc$ildren. And4 w$at a story it was. He went on for at least 1) minutes about t$e problems $e and $is family $ad and t$e concern officials $a!e wit$ t$e in!asion of t$is plant from Argentina w$ere it was seen as an attracti!e ornamental. He tal5ed about ras$es on $is own $ands recei!ed from w$ac5ing away at t$e menace in $is own bac5yard. +$en4 suddenly4 $e leaned forward in $is c$air4 turned toward t$e landlord wit$ a menacing leer and pronounced4 6Motion granted. &udgment for t$e plaintiff.6 -o4 client got $er deposit money. Ef a fact is commonly 5nown4 you can mo!e t$e court to enter an order ta5ing 0udicial notice of t$e fact ? and t$en you need not struggle to pro!e t$e fact. Et is a fact for all purposes t$roug$out t$e remainder of t$e case; ,f course4 li5e all ot$er motions4 t$e best way to ma5e t$em is to write t$em on paper4 file t$e original wit$ t$e cler54 ser!e a copy on t$e opposing party4 prepare a proposed order granting your motion4 and set a $earing to argue your motion and get your proposed order signed.

Ho- to Dodge % '%-suit o you wan to dodge a lawsuit@ 2$et$er you3re a plaintiff or defendant4 you must 5now w$at smart defendants do to dodge lawsuits. Ef a defendant is ser!ed wit$ a complaint4 $e may dodge t$e lawsuit by filing motions to a!oid filing an Answer; T"is is c%lled t"e 8flurr# of +otions8 ,nce a defendant files an Answer4 $e3s loc5ed in and misses t$is c$ance to dodge t$e lawsuit altoget$er. on3t file an Answer if you can dodge t$e lawsuit wit$ a 6flurry of motions6.

Ene>perienced lawyers and pro se people ma5e t$e a!oidable mista5e of filing an Answer to plaintiff3s Complaint ... instead of using t$e flurry of motions. Motion to ismiss Motion to -tri5e Motion for More efinite -tatement

.ac$ of t$ese motions postpones t$e necessity of filing an Answer to t$e Complaint ... and gains you !aluable time and e!idence?gat$ering opportunities; En some cases it puts an end to t$e case. *eriod; Iailure to use t$e Ilurry of Motions wea5ens your case. 1earn $ow to use t$e Ilurry of Motions at How to 2in in Court

9 Ho- to P'EAD :OUR CASE

A lawsuit begins w$en t$e person bringing t$e suit files a complaint. +$is first step begins w$at is 5nown as t$e pleadings stage of t$e suit. *leadings are certain formal documents filed wit$ t$e court t$at state t$e parties3 basic positions. Common pre?trial pleadings includeF Complaint 8or petition or bill9. *robably t$e most important pleading in a ci!il case4 since by setting out t$e plaintiff3s !ersion of t$e facts and specifying t$e damages4 it frames t$e issues of t$e case. Et includes !arious counts ? t$at is4 distinct statements of t$e plaintiffMs cause of action ? $ig$lig$ting t$e factual and legal basis of t$e suit. Answer. +$is statement by t$e defendant usually e>plains w$y t$e plaintiff s$ould not pre!ail. Et may also offer additional facts4 or plead an e>cuse. /eply. Any party in t$e case may $a!e to file a reply4 w$ic$ is an answer to new allegations raised in pleadings. Counterclaim. +$e defendant may file a counterclaim4 w$ic$ asserts t$at t$e plaintiff $as in0ured t$e defendant in some way4 and s$ould pay damages. 86<ou3re suing me@ 2ell t$en4 E3m suing you.69 Et may be filed separately or as part of t$e answer. Ef a counterclaim is filed4 t$e plaintiff must be gi!en t$e opportunity to respond by filing a reply. 7e *recise . o not use legalese language you do not 5now . o not ma5e it too wordy. Deep it simple. 8DE--9 . +$e plaintiff3s 0ob is to state t$eir case clearly. +$ey state t$eir cause of action 4 state liability and damages. <ou now M,(. +H. C,G/+. Ef you dont mo!e t$e court not$ing $appens. +$e pleadings frame t$e case. 2e say w$at t$e case is about . 2$at we are going to pro!e. <ou can amend t$e pleadings 4 because you found out somet$ing you didn3t 5now before . M,(. +H. C,G/+ to amend t$e pleadings if t$ey $a!e already answered. Ef t$ey $a!e not answered your pleadings you can 5eep amending up to court date . Ef you need to pro!e a fact4 e>ample someone owns a !e$icle. Ef $e admits it 4 its for t$e record. Complaint is one page4 a pleading. Ma5e sure you $a!e t$e rig$t court4 in your 0urisdiction. -tate written agreement . *ut in pleadings any facts t$at t$ey will admit . ,wning a car4 doing some action. +$is way you dont need to pro!e it later . Ef person admits it 4 its t$ere for all intent and purposes.<ou $a!e used your pleading for E-C,(./<. Ef its CAG-. ,I AC+E,C you want to put it in t$e pleadings. Ef t$ey are going to deny it or not 4 you want to put it in t$e pleadings because it $as to be t$ere. Ef you dont want to go t$roug$ t$e trouble of deposing someone 4 subpoeaing ban5 records for proof4 as an e>ample 4 t$en you go a$ead and put t$at in t$e complaint.

+ry to ma5e it one page. &udges are laAy and t$ey dont li5e to read. <ou $a!e to basically ma5e is simple for t$em. *leadings are complaints4 answers4 affirmati!e defenses4 and replies to defenses. *leadings state cases 4 t$ey state causes of action 4 factual elements t$at support t$e causes of action. +$ats w$at ma5es t$e case. +$e affirmati!e defense is a defense. -tatue of limitations4 paid wit$ receipts. *leadings establis$ t$e case. Ma5e sure you frame t$e case appropriately. +ric5 a lawyer. +rying to pro!e somet$ing until most effecti!e moment you are at trial. <ou ma5e is so t$ey cannot ammend t$eir pleadings so t$ey wont get relief. ont tip t$em off. 2ait till t$ey mo!e to trial. St%tutes ,ne of t$e biggest case?losing mista5es is mis?reading statutes. Ef you don3t 5now w$at t$e law says4 you3ll $a!e a de!ilis$ly $ard time getting a 0udge to agree wit$ you; -tatutory language must be interpreted according to well?establis$ed 6rules of statutory interpretation6. +$e rules of statutory interpretation are !ital to winning your case. <ou need to 5now $ow courts interpret w$at t$e law ma5ers meant w$en t$ey wrote t$e law; +oo many 6assume6 t$ey 5now w$at a statute says4 but t$e only opinion t$at counts is w$at controlling appellate courts say a statute says. Appellate courts apply rules of statutory interpretation. <ou must learn t$ese rules ... if you want to win; One of t"e /iggest c%se&losing +ist%.es is +is&re%ding t"e l% Constitutions /ules -tatutes Codes Court /ulings

<ou must ne!er let a 0udge or opposing party or $is lawyer to play games wit$ words. Dnowing t$ese rules 8more completely e>plained in my course9 gi!es you t$e 5nowledge?power you need to put a stop to t$e word games; Ef a reasonable person would read 6bicycle6 to mean a two?w$eeled !e$icle powered only by legs and feet4 no 0udge or lawyer s$ould be allowed to stretc$ t$e meaning to include mopeds or motorcycles. &udges and lawyers s$ould be compelled to agree t$at a law says

6plainly6 w$at it says and t$at it means it. -ometimes 0udges and lawyers twist words to reac$ an outcome t$ey desire. <,G must 5now t$ese rules so you can put a stop to it before it causes you to lose your case; So$ !"%t if t"e +e%ning is pl%in /ut t"e conte6t is confusing$ Ior e>ample4 according to t$e rule of 6e0usdem generis6 8simply 1atin for 6of t$e same type694 general terms at t$e end of specific lists include only t$ings of t$e same type as t$ose specifically mentioned in t$e list. Ef a pro!ision lists 6oranges4 grapefruit4 lemons4 and ot$er fruit64 t$e doctrine of e0usdem generis limits t$e p$rase 6ot$er fruit6 to mean ot$er citrus fruit. Apples and pears are not included. ,ne may assume t$e pro!ision includes ot$er citrus4 e.g.4 5umBuats4 limes4 tangelos4 etc. Howe!er4 strawberries and grapes are not included. +$e term e0usdem generis means4 in essence4 of t$e same type. Ot"er 'eg%l Docu+ents Ef you don3t 5now w$at a law actually says4 you3ll $a!e a difficult and $ard time getting a 0udge to agree wit$ you; Ior e>ample4 t$e primary rule of statutory interpretation statutes is t$e 6*lain Meaning /ule6. +$is rule reBuires 0udges to gi!e words in t$e law t$eir 6plain meaning6 ? w$at an ordinary reasonable person would belie!e a word means in t$e conte>t of t$e statute w$ere it3s found. &udges s$ould ne!er be allowed to play games wit$ lawma5ers3 words. Ef a reasonable person would read 6bicycle6 to mean a two?w$eeled engine?less !e$icle powered only by legs and feet4 no 0udge s$ould allow a party to stretc$ t$e meaning to include mopeds or motorcycles. &udges s$ould be compelled to agree t$at a law says 6plainly6 w$at it means and mean not$ing more. 7ut4 sometimes 0udges and lawyers will twist t$e words to reac$ an outcome t$ey desire. <,G must 5now $ow to $andle t$ese situations and put a stop to it before it causes you to lose your case;

En a s$ort motion ? M,+E,C +, E-ME-- for failure to state a CAG-. ,I AC+E,C 4 and you $a!e a citation to a case or a citation to a statute4 you dont need a separate M.M,/AC GM 4 t$e M.M,/AC GM is contained in your motion. Ets a combination motion wit$ M.M,/AC GM as t$e argument. 7ut if you $a!e a comple> motion4 its better to write your motion ? and write a separate M.M,/AC GM in support for *1AEC+EII3s motion for -GMMA/< &G H.M.C+. +$en you can write your cases 4 point by point. Ha!e a nice outline4 and submit it to t$e court. +$is way if it goes to trial it will be in t$e record. /egardless if t$e 0udge needs it or not. <ou write a M.M,/AC GM4 facts t$at relate to CAG-. ,I AC+E,C4 and law t$at applies to t$e causes of action. Deep it -imple. Come rig$t to t$e point. Cite cases4 statutes4 rules or constitutions. Many loose on constitutional rules. +$ere are better ways to win case. Case law is better for 0udge. +$e 5t$ court $as ruled li5e t$is before. &udicial notice is w$ere you M,(. +H. C,G/+ to enter an order 4 on t$e record4 finding t$at a certain t$ing is true. Et $as to be rele!ant to t$e case. <ou $a!e to file a motion. <ou $a!e to notice t$e ot$er side. Ef its refering to some official document w$ic$ is a treaty etc 4 you attac$ t$e official document to t$e motion wit$ &udicial notice . Ef its a treaty $e $as to ac5nowledge it. &udicial notice ma5es 0udge rule on a treaty or anot$er state treaty . Compariti!e 0udicial notice. Always be preparing for an appeal. Answerable to $ig$er up. How do you 5eep your case from going to appeal@ Always be prepared for an appeal. Ha!e a court reporter4 always ma5e your record . Ce!er get anyt$ing t$at is not admissable. o your $omewor5. +$e 0udge see3s t$at your building your case. 2$at do E $a!e to send up to appellate court. Cant supoena t$e 0udge or court reporter. Approac$ing t$e benc$. +ell t$e trut$. Mo!e t$e court. +ell $im t$e law4 tal5 about due process. Gnderstand ue *rocess. .!eryone $as power to ma5e t$e court do somet$ing. Constitutions mean not$ing 4 if you cant ma5e a record4 $a!e a $earing 4 bring in e!idence . Ets not 0ust t$e law4 its ue *rocess. -$ow respect to t$e court 4 but also be prepared to t$reaten t$e 0udge if

you find t$at t$e 0udge is too friendly to t$e opposing counsel. Always $a!e a court reporter present 4 and be prepared to recuse t$e 0udge if you find t$at t$e opponent is related wit$ your opponent. Always be prepared to appeal.

6+$is court s$ould NN because 4t$ district court of appeals in &ones !s &o$nson 2#6."" florida dca 1%#" 4 t$en Buote e>actly as it appears. -upport your own arguments. 2$en you $a!e an argument in writing its in t$e record. Ets done 4 its in. 6first t$e foregoing issue $as not been a0udicated ? no e!idence $as been presented to contradict *1AEC+EIIs allegations wit$ regard to t$e foregoing issue. <ou $a!e not completed E-C,(./<.6 Cant get -GMMA/< &G H.M.C+ if E-C,(./< is still in motion. irect Buote from citation .pstein !s Huidance Corporation ? gi!ing t$e 0udge answers. Hi!e $im some cases. 6Ets a /e!ersable error to grant -GMMA/< &G H.M.C+ wit$out E-C,(./<.6 *repare e!ery pleading or memorandum as if your going to Appellate Court. Cases abo!e you t$at do rule in your fa!or. Caption 4 +itle 4 *reamble4 -tate t$e issues and state t$e argument and support t$e argument wit$ citations and t$en t$eres a 2H./.I,/. C1AG-.. E pray t$e court will ,rder ? eny t$e defendents motion. o t$is and $ere are t$e cases and t$is is w$at t$ey say. Copies of t$e cases. <ou can3t argue cases on t$e fly4 you need a copy before $and to read and understand t$em. Ef opposing cousel brings up citations and you were not gi!e a copy4 you can as5 for a 1) minute recess to read t$e copy . ,pposing t$e ot$er sides motions is one reason to write a memorandum . ,ppose t$eir citations 6,pposing counsel is trying to mislead t$is $onorable court6 by citing. Heres w$at t$ey really say. Hood for appellate court. /.A ECH AG+H,/E+E.Constitutions 4 -tatutes and anotated statutes. Head notes of cases. Can loo5 up case.

1aw suites are won or lost on e!idence. Cot all facts are e!idence. Many come up empty $anded. +$ey t$in5 t$at letter is going to come in as e!idence. Anyt$ing not admissable is not e!idence. Ef your opponent doesn3t 5now w$at $e is doing. 7ring any 5ind of e!idence. &udge is not to declare anyt$ing is not admissable. And if t$e 0udge brings up t$e not admissable4 raise $ell. Ha!e t$at court reporter write down e!eryt$ing you say. Het rig$t to t$e point of almost being t$rown in 0ail. -tand up for your rig$ts and say 6<our $onor 4 0udges are not suppose to $elp one side or t$e ot$er. And if you offer e!idence and its not admissable and t$e ot$er side doesn3t ob0ect 4 its t$e ot$er side3s 0ob to ob0ect not t$e 0udges. Deep $im straig$t. +$e disco!ery tool is called a /eBuest for *roduction. <ou can use it to get documents or t$ings ... of all descriptions. /eBuests for *roduction are simply papers reBuiring your opponent to produce documents and tangible t$ings you list in your reBuest ... so you can inspect t$em and copy t$em for your own use. .!en t$oug$ t$ey3re called 6reBuests64 t$ey force your opponent to produce ... or go to 0ail. *rotect yourself from t$e croo5ed4 deceitful $ide?t$e?ball game lawyers play; <ou can get your opponent3s toot$brus$ or ban5 records4 if t$ey will $elp you win your case ... and eit$er your opponent turns t$em o!er or you can send your opponent to 0ail; +$e disco!ery tool is called a /eBuest for *roduction. <ou can use it to get documents or t$ings ... of all descriptions. /eBuests for *roduction are simply papers reBuiring your opponent to produce documents and tangible t$ings you list in your reBuest ... so you can inspect t$em and copy t$em for your own use. Iinding e!idence was ne!er easier; .!en t$oug$ t$ey3re called 6reBuests64 t$ey force your opponent to produce ... or go to 0ail. *rotect yourself from t$e croo5ed4 deceitful $ide?t$e?ball game lawyers play;

3i)e tools for DISCO5ER: /eBuest for Admissions /eBuest for *roduction Enterogatories ? written Buestions. ser!ed bac5 under oat$. epositions ? person called to testify 4 usually accompanied by a /eBuest for *roduction Court Aut$orities ? supoenaes4 rig$t to go to someones business. Gse mostly first t$ree. 2$at e!er will gi!e you e!idence for your case. T"e *%jor Tools #ou -ill USE /eBuest for Admission ? admit t$e trut$ of t$e following4 and state fact /eBuest for *roduction ? get letters boo5s4contracts 4 Enterogatories ? simply Buestions 4 use t$em sparingly Edentify t$e person signing t$e interogatories 4 t$e signatures and name of t$e person w$o answered t$e interogatories. -o w$y did you waste an interogatory to answer a Buestion t$at you 5now $e answered@ <ou use t$em upfront and use t$em sparingly. -ome used at t$e end 4 rig$t before trial. +$ere is not$ing you cant get before trial. Het e!eryt$ing upfront 4 admissions4 production of documents4 interogatories . Affida!its are inadmissable. An affida!it is not a court statement made to */,(. A CA-. as a matter of certainty. An affida!it is $ere say. Heresay is an out of court statement offered to pro!e t$e trut$ of a matter of certain. Ef you $a!e an affida!it and t$e person w$o signed comes in to court 4 t$en $e can say w$at t$e affida!it says is true4 but t$at3s $is testimony. Ef t$e affida!it is not a witness4 not a party4 didn3t get dipose4 its $eresay4 its an out of court statement. *arty3s affida!it ? sub0ect to cross e>amined. ocuments spea5ing for t$emsel!es ? Ho! documents. 1etter from Aunt or mec$anic is not admissable4 its $eresay 4 it means you can cross e>amine t$e witness during trial. /ules of .!idence and Compelling isco!ery ? e!idence ? many attorneys file reBuest for disco!eries4 file interogatories 4 file reBuest for admissions and nobody answers. -o t$ey dont file a motion to compel or file a motion to compel but ne!er set it for a $earing. -o4 t$ey ne!er get to t$e part of t$e pleadings. *art of getting isco!ery is to compel. isco!ery

/eBuest for admission ? true or false 4 yes no Buestions. Gse t$em sparingly. /eBuest for production ? !ague 4 ambiguous4 t$ats w$y you file motion to compel. 7e specific wit$ dates. Court wont ma5e t$em bring records from 1%3)3s. Ad!antage of ma5ing t$em produce a record is t$at t$ey can not ob0ect to it if its broug$t out in trial. Cotice t$at complaint $as to be numbered. +o slow down t$e court 5now w$ic$ reBuests to answer. efendant s$ould as5 for specific Buestions and answer specific Buestion. *1AEC+EII3s first reBuest response to t$is particular reBuest will ma5e plaintiff ammend $is pleading to be more specific. As a defendent 4 second reBuest s$ould be to as5 about t$e second reBuest etc. 6E want to 5now w$at documents are responsi!e to t$is reBuest6 . Enstead of getting a bo> of documents. Ef interogatories are lies t$en you can file a motion to s$ow cause w$y t$ey s$ouldn3t be $eld in contempt of court . ,t$er side will ta5e epositions at so and so office at so and so date. Ior E-C,(./< and for use in $earings or in trial. -et a number of $ours4 if t$ey dont s$ow up4 t$en you file a motion w$y t$ey s$ouldn3t be $eld for contempt of court. Ef t$e court orders an order ordering t$em to s$ow cause w$y t$ey s$ouldn3t be $eld in contempt of court and t$ey dont s$ow cause4 &udge enters an order of contempt. Motion to s$ow cause before Motion for contempt. <ou cant file a motion for contempt unless person was under a court order in t$e first place. Cause its not contempt to disobey me4 but is contempt to disobey t$e court. &udge $as to s$ow cause4 o5 mot$er died4 ne>t wee5 comes ? motion for contempt. Cow 0udge gi!es $im more time4 if not t$ere4 file affida!its4 0udge will order $im to 0ail. -upoena power4 0ust call attorney 4 defendent or opposing person to create a deposition. Ef $e does not agree4 t$en go to 0udge for deposition. 0udge will order a deposition. Ef unreasonable. Het an order. -upoena is 0ust an order to appear. &udge or court can motion for contempt. Pre&tri%l Conferences &udges use pre?trial conferences wit$ lawyers for many purposes. ,ne type of conference gaining popularity is t$e status conference 8sometimes called t$e early conference9. +$is conference O$eld after all initial pleadings $a!e been filedO$elps t$e 0udge manage t$e case. &udges use it to establis$ a time frame for concluding all pre?trial acti!ities and may set a tentati!e trial date at t$is

time. En some 0urisdictions4 certain 5inds of disputesOsuc$ as disagreements o!er c$ild custodyO must be referred to a t$ird party t$at will try to facilitate a settlement. Ef t$e 0urisdiction $as suc$ court?anne>ed alternati!e dispute resolution 8for e>ample4 arbitration or mediation 94 t$e 0udge may refer t$e case to t$at program at t$is $earing. Arbitration in!ol!es submitting t$e dispute to a neutral t$ird party w$o renders a decision after $earing arguments and re!iewing e!idence. EtMs generally Buic5er and less e>pensi!e t$an a full?fledged trial. En mediation4 a t$ird?party mediator w$o is neutral assists t$e parties to reac$ a negotiated settlement of t$eir differences. +$e mediator uses a !ariety of tec$niBues to $elp t$em come to agreement4 but $e or s$e is not empowered to decide t$e case. 7ot$ arbitration and mediation are typically pri!ate4 so t$ey $a!e t$e added benefit of $elping t$e parties a!oid publicity. En at least 2# states4 court?anne>ed arbitration or mediation is automatic for many cases4 for e>ample4 t$ose under a certain dollar amount. .!en t$oug$ t$ese cases must initially be sent to arbitration or mediation4 sometimes t$e losing party in arbitration or mediation may appeal4 w$ic$ sends t$e case bac5 into t$e court system. &udges also use pre?trial conferences to encourage settling cases. At t$e conference4 t$e 0udge and t$e lawyers can re!iew t$e e!idence and clarify t$e issues in dispute. Ef a case $asnMt been settled4 many courts set a time for an issue conference. +$e lawyers usually appear at t$is $earing before a 0udge wit$out t$eir clients and try to agree on undisputed facts or points of law. -uc$ agreements are called stipulations . +$e issue conference can s$orten t$e actual trial time by determining points t$at donMt need to be pro!ed during t$e trial. Ef a settlement doesnMt ta5e place t$roug$ pre?trial conferences4 t$e 0udge sets a date for t$e trial. -tate all rig$ts to sue4 plus all facts and law t$at control t$e outcome4 if t$e facts and law can be pro!ed. Answer t$e complaint4 we answer one allegation at a time4 admitting indi!idual paragrap$s. E-C,(./< can start at beginning4 t$e complaint is part of w$ere you start. Ma5e

some statements to admit or deny. +o begin preparing for trial4 bot$ sides engage in disco!ery . +$is is t$e formal process of e>c$anging information between t$e parties about t$e witnesses and e!idence t$eyMll present at trial.

isco!ery enables t$e parties to 5now before t$e trial begins w$at e!idence may be presented. EtMs designed to pre!ent 6trial by ambus$46 w$ere one side doesnMt learn of t$e ot$er sideMs e!idence or witnesses until t$e trial4 w$en t$ereMs no time to obtain answering e!idence. :our Deposition Po-ers <our eposition *ower ... 2$en4 2$y4 2$at4 and How ... 7ut; 1i5e ot$er tools in your 61awyer3s

-lay your opponent wit$ depositions; Happy eposition 1ittle /ed +oolbo>64 depositions are best usedF At t$e rig$t time4 Ior t$e rig$t reason4 En t$e rig$t way;

A deposition is not a friendly coffee?5latc$; Et3s not a 6social e!ent6. 7eware of snea5y lawyers4 w$o try to turn t$e serious fact?finding business of deposition into a friendly 6con!ersation6. o not allow it. 2$en you see it begin4 stop it immediately; 1awyers will try to lead deposition witnesses into a false sense of safety by seeming 6friendly64 as5ing Buestions about Aunt -uAy3s recipe for butterscotc$ coo5ies or w$ere Gncle 7ill spent $is !acation last year. +$is is not to get at facts but to tric5 t$e witness into 6c$atting64 to get you and t$e witness off?guard so improper Buestions can be 6popped6 in w$ile you day?dream about $ow many Buarters you put in t$e par5ing meter outside. 6E understand you3re Buite a golfer4 Mr. 2itness.6 on3t be duped. <our opponent3s lawyer doesn3t care a t$ing about t$e witness3 golfing. He3s on a fis$ing e>pedition. He3s after somet$ing else. ,ne of t$e most common met$ods of disco!ery is to ta5e depositions. A deposition is an out? of?court statement gi!en under oat$ by any person in!ol!ed in t$e case. Et is to be used at trial or in preparation for trial. Et may be in t$e form of a written transcript4 a !ideotape4 or bot$. En most states4 eit$er of t$e parties may ta5e t$e deposition of t$e ot$er party4 or of any ot$er witness. 7ot$ sides $a!e t$e rig$t to be present during oral depositions. epositions enable a party to 5now in ad!ance w$at a witness will say at t$e trial. epositions can also be ta5en to obtain t$e testimony of important witnesses w$o canMt appear during t$e trial. En t$at case4 t$eyMre read into e!idence at t$e trial. ,ften a witness3s deposition will be ta5en by t$e opposing side and used to discredit t$e witness3s testimony at trial if t$e trial testimony !aries from t$e testimony ta5en during t$e

deposition. 8A lawyer mig$t as5 a witness at trial4 PAre you lying now or were you lying t$en@Q9 Gsually depositions consist of an oral e>amination4 followed by cross?e>amination by t$e opposing side. En addition to ta5ing depositions4 eit$er party may submit written Buestions4 called interrogatories 4 to t$e ot$er party and reBuire t$at t$ey be answered in writing under oat$. Ef one party c$ooses to use an interrogatory4 written Buestions are sent to t$e lawyer representing t$e ot$er side4 and t$at party $as a period of time in w$ic$ to answer. epositions are simply a c$ance to s$ow people t$ings and as5 t$em Buestions w$ile t$ey are under oat$ ... and wit$ an official court reporter ma5ing a written record. +$e deponent 8person being deposed9 is e>posed to criminal penalties for per0ury. epositions are your opportunity to put your opponent and e!ery necessary witness under oat$ before trial and get answers to Buestions t$at go beyond t$e tig$t restrictions of t$e rules of e!idence t$at control at trial; Howe!er it3s done4 ta5ing depositions is simply one of putting a witness under oat$ in t$e presence of a court reporter 8w$o administers t$e oat$ and records all t$at3s as5ed and answered9 and in t$e presence of your opponent 8and $is counsel4 if $e $as a lawyer9 w$o may also as5 Buestions of t$e witness. Dnowing $ow and w$en to ta5e depositions gi!es you a ma0or ad!antage o!er your opponent. Sl%# #our opponent -it" depositions= 1i5e ot$er tools in your 61awyer3s 1ittle /ed +oolbo>64 depositions are best usedF At t$e rig$t time4 Ior t$e rig$t reason4 En t$e rig$t way;

A deposition is not a friendly coffee?5latc$; Et3s not a 6social e!ent6. 7eware of snea5y lawyers4 w$o try to turn t$e serious fact?finding business of deposition into a friendly 6con!ersation6. o not allow it.

Ot"er +et"ods of disco)er# include subpoenaing or reBuiring t$e ot$er side to produce boo5s4 records or ot$er documents for inspection 8a subpoena is a written order issued by a court compelling a person to testify or produce certain p$ysical e!idence suc$ as records9K $a!ing t$e ot$er side submit to a p$ysical e>amination as5ing t$at a document be submitted for e>amination to determine if it is genuine. Cormally4 dont ta5e depositions untill you 5now w$at case is about. Most situations 4 you will get one s$ot at your opponent. ,t$er side will file a motion for protecti!e order4 wont get to get deposition again. ,nly time before trial to spea5 . -a!e till 0ust before trial. +$is way you can present it in case. 1awyers get paid to go to trial. Ef your t$e plaintiff and you dont $a!e a lawyer4 you can tal5 to t$e ot$er side and go around t$e attorney. .lements $a!e to be met for a lawsuit to proceed. epositions are ta5en only after you $a!e done t$e first t$ree.

> Ho- #ou PRO5E A CASE

Dnow 2$at t$e 1aw Actually -ays and Means; ,ne of t$e biggest case?losing mista5es is mis?reading t$e law. Constitutions /ules -tatutes Codes Court /ulings ,t$er 1egal ocuments

Ef you don3t 5now w$at a law actually says4 you3ll $a!e a de!ilis$ly $ard time getting a 0udge to agree wit$ you; Gnderstanding t$e 6rules of language interpretation6 is essential ... not only to winning lawsuits but to obtain success in ot$er pursuits of life as well. 1egal language must be interpreted according to t$e 6rules of language interpretation6. Gnderstanding t$e rules of language interpretation are !ital to winning your case. <ou , want to win4 don3t you@ +oo many ot$erwise cle!er people 6assume6 t$ey 5now w$at a law says4 w$en t$e only opinion t$at counts in court is w$at appellate 0ustices say t$e law says. Appellate 0ustices apply t$e rules of language interpretation. <ou must also learn t$e rules ... if you want to win; Ior e>ample4 one of t$e principles rules is t$e 6*lain Meaning /ule6. +$is rule reBuires 0udges to gi!e words t$eir 6plain meaning64 i.e.4 w$at an ordinary reasonable person would belie!e a word means in t$e conte>t w$ere it3s found. <ou must ne!er let a 0udge or opposing party or $is lawyer to play games wit$ words. Dnowing t$ese rules 8more completely e>plained in my course9 gi!es you t$e 5nowledge?power you need to put a stop to t$e word games; Ef a reasonable person would read 6bicycle6 to mean a two?w$eeled !e$icle powered only by legs and feet4 no 0udge or lawyer s$ould be allowed to stretc$ t$e meaning to include mopeds or motorcycles. &udges and lawyers s$ould be compelled to agree t$at a law says 6plainly6 w$at it says

and t$at it means it. -ometimes 0udges and lawyers twist words to reac$ an outcome t$ey desire. <,G must 5now t$ese rules so you can put a stop to it before it causes you to lose your case; -o@ 2$at if t$e meaning is plain but t$e conte>t is confusing@ Ior e>ample4 according to t$e rule of 8ejusde+ generis8 8simply 1atin for 6of t$e same type694 general terms at t$e end of specific lists include only t$ings of t$e same type as t$ose specifically mentioned in t$e list. Ef a pro!ision lists 6oranges4 grapefruit4 lemons4 and ot$er fruit64 t$e doctrine of e0usdem generis limits t$e p$rase 6ot$er fruit6 to mean ot$er citrus fruit. Apples and pears are not included. ,ne may assume t$e pro!ision includes ot$er citrus4 e.g.4 5umBuats4 limes4 tangelos4 etc. Howe!er4 strawberries and grapes are not included. +$e term e0usdem generis means4 in essence4 of t$e same type. 3%cts ? '%+$e 5ey $ere is to get to t$e trut$. +$e trut$ may ne!er be 5nown so facts may only be your !ersion. Cot e!ery case is winnable. Cot e!ery wrong $as a remedy. +$is is w$ere witnesses 4 contracts 4 0ournals4 receipts 4boo5s 4 ban5 records4 etc. .!eryt$ing comes from your pre!ious motions4 disco!ery ' interogatories.

'i%/ilit# %nd D%+%ges ? o we $a!e t$e facts @ o we $a!e t$e law@ 2$at do we $a!e to pro!e@ 2e $a!e to pro!e t$at t$e ot$er side is legally liable for our damages4 and pro!e t$at we were damaged as a direct and pro>imate result. 2$o pro>imately caused t$e damages@ +$e Court wants to 5now pro>imate causation. 2$o is responsible@ <ou $a!e to pro!e if in fact a person was $urt and pro!e w$o is liable. .!ery CAG-. ,I AC+E,C arises because someone $ad a duty t$at t$e law recogniAes and t$ey breac$ed and as a result 4 someone breac$ed it. +$ere also $as to be a pro>imate4 or a close relations$ip between t$e causation and t$e damages. Kno- t"e '%- do #our RESEARCH Ef facts are true4 5now t$e law and statutes. 1egal researc$ includes cases4 statutes4 rules and constitutions. +$ats your researc$. Gse t$e 1aw library. Ets important t$at you cite t$e law

correctly. 7lue 7oo5 ? contains cases. Always $a!e a copy of t$e case for t$e 0udge and to t$e opposing party. 2inning by ambus$ days are o!er4 ma5e copies of e!eryt$ing to opposing party. Always $elping 0udge ? 4t$ district court said t$is etc. Control t$e 0udge wit$ 6legal aut$ority6 by researc$ing and citing appellate court opinions. Controlling 0udges is w$at wins cases; <our opponent will cite legal aut$orities. <ou must do t$e same ... if you want to win.

@ Ho- to *O5E THE COURT

-et t$e Motion for $earing ? -c$edule a $earing 4 go to $earing *resent t$e facts and t$e law *ro!e 1iability and damages +$e 0udge rules ont as5 or beg. Cot about persuasi!e speec$. Ma5e t$e court mo!e. <ou $a!e t$e rules4 you cited t$e statutes4 cited t$e facts. &udge will $a!e to mo!e t$e court. Ef 0udge doesnt li5e you 4 you instruct t$e court w$at to do. 7efore you mo!e court4 court $as no responsibility to mo!e anyt$ing. He can deny or grant t$e motion but $e cant do not$ing. <ou set it for $earing. Ho to $earing 6 <es sir4 Em $ere on a motion to compel E-C,(./< under rule 1.3#) 4 Em entitled to sanctions . He didnt answer wit$in t$e time it was necessary to answer t$e Buestions. All t$e reBuests were made see5ing to inBuire into t$e facts t$at will lead to admissable e!idence and case law is suc$ and suc$ &ones !s &o$nson 4#6. defendent $ad 3) days to answer . &udge cant grant or deny t$e motion. &udge $as to do somet$ing. <our $onor for a moment4 <our order is $e $as to produce t$ese records. Always $a!e a court reporter t$ere 4 or if t$ere is one 4 ma5e sure you get a certified copy of w$ats said or pleadings. 2$at e!er it ta5es. Ef 0udge refuses file a petition of mandamus to a $ig$er court. -ooner or later $e will sign it. ,rders are real simple. Ma5e sure you say 6 E M,(. +H. C,G/+6 Ef your t$e defendent 4 dont M,(. +H. C,G/+. 1et it sit t$ere if someone $as sued you for damages. Court doesn3t mo!e my itself. Ef *1AEC+EII3 files t$e motion don3t you go and set it for $earing. En some states if it goes for one year wit$out any mo!ement 4 defendent can file a mo!e to $a!e it dismissed for failure to prosecute4 t$en its o!er wit$. Ef its your case 4 file your motion4 attac$ your notice of $earing. ta5e depositions4 do E-C,(./<. ont e>pect t$e 0udge to do anyt$ing. +$en get &udgement.

Ef you are loo5ing for &udicial /emedy4 t$ere are two 5inds of remedy .Buitable remedy ? damages ? in0unction ? court orders someone to do somet$ing Money amages ? /emedy at 1aw

Ef you do not state all t$e elements 4 you will $a!e your case dismissed. Offers of Proof in Court Ef you start to offer e!idence and4 before you can get it before t$e court4 t$e ot$er side ob0ects and t$e 0udge sustains your opponent3s ob0ection4 you must mo!e t$e court to allow you to ma5e clear on t$e record w$at your e!idence was going to be and w$at it would tend to pro!e; +$is is ma5ing an offer of proof. .>pect your opponent to try to stop you. 7e prepared to ma5e an offer of proof immediately ... or ris5 losing needlessly; An offer of proof s$ows t$e court on t$e recordF 2$at t$e offered e!idence is and 2$at t$e e!idence tends to pro!e

Iailure to get e!idence admitted is fatal; Ef you don3t get your e!idence admitted and don3t ma5e an offer of proof4 you3ll $a!e not$ing to appeal if you lose; Ef you don3t ma5e an offer of proof4 t$e record will not s$ow t$e appellate court w$at t$e e!idence would $a!e been. +$ere3ll be not$ing in t$e record for t$e appellate court to re!iew; Appellate courts will not e>amine e!idence t$at wasn3t made part of t$e record at t$e trial le!el. <ou can3t introduce e!idence for t$e first time on appeal.

A Burisdiction %nd 5enue

+$e plaintiff must decide w$ere to file t$e case. A court $as no aut$ority to decide a case unless it $as 0urisdiction o!er t$e person or property in!ol!ed. +o $a!e 0urisdiction4 a court must $a!e aut$ority o!er t$e sub0ect matter of t$e case and t$e court must be able to e>ercise control o!er t$e defendant4 or t$e property in!ol!ed must be located in t$e area under t$e court3s control. +$e e>tent of t$e court3s control o!er persons and property is set by law. Certain actions are transitory . +$ey can be broug$t w$ere!er t$e defendant may be found and ser!ed wit$ a summons4 and w$ere t$e 0urisdiction $as sufficient contact wit$ one of t$e parties and t$e incident t$at ga!e rise to t$e suit. An e>ample would be a lawsuit against a business??it would probably be sufficient to file suit in any county in w$ic$ t$e business $as an operation4 and not necessary to file suit in t$e county w$ere it its $eadBuartered. ,t$er actions ? suc$ as foreclosing on a piece of property ? are local. +$ey can be broug$t only in t$e county w$ere t$e sub0ect of t$e suit is located. (enue refers to t$e county or district wit$in a state or t$e G.-. w$ere t$e lawsuit is to be tried. +$e !enue of a lawsuit is set by statute4 but it can sometimes be c$anged to anot$er county or district. Ior e>ample4 if a case $as recei!ed widespread pre?trial publicity4 one of t$e parties may ma5e a motion 8reBuest to t$e 0udge9 for C"%nge of 5enue in an effort to secure 0urors w$o $a!enMt already formed an opinion about t$e case. (enue also may be c$anged for t$e con!enience of witnesses.

1C Prep%ring for He%rings or Tri%l

Most court cases can be won before trial. All you need to 5now is $ow to use a $andful of tools effecti!ely. *roper pleadings. .!idence disco!ery tools. Motions and memoranda. Courtroom ob0ections.

*leadings frame t$e case and tell t$e court w$at t$e fig$t is about. .!idence pro!es t$e facts alleged. Motions 6mo!e6 t$e court to act. Courtroom ob0ections put t$e 0udge on notice $e will be appealed if $e rules against you;

11 Offensi)e Str%tegies
.!idence is w$at $elps you win cases. ,ne way to find e!idence is wit$ interrogatories. Enterogatories are 0ust written Buestions t$at must be answered under oat$ ... or someone goes to 0ail; Ior e>ample4 one interrogatory used is to ser!e on t$e opponents reads4 6Edentify all persons $a!ing first?$and 5nowledge of any material fact alleged in t$e pleadings of t$is case and4 wit$ regard to eac$ suc$ person4 state w$at t$ey 5now about eac$ suc$ fact and $ow t$ey came to 5now it.6 Co matter w$o is trying to $ide it; /ule 268b9 Iederal /ules of Ci!il *rocedure pro!ides4 6*arties may obtain disco!ery regarding any nonpri!ileged matter t$at is rele!ant to any party3s claim or defense RSQ including t$e e>istence4 description4 nature4 custody4 condition4 and location of any documents or ot$er tangible t$ings and t$e identity and location of persons w$o 5now of any disco!erable matter. Ior good cause4 t$e court may order disco!ery of any matter rele!ant to t$e sub0ect matter in!ol!ed in t$e action.6 Creating a complaint is !ery simple 40ust ma5e sure your in t$e rig$t court. +ell t$e 0udge w$y t$e court $as sub0ect matter 0urisdiction. +$en t$e general factual allegations and compensation . Ior small claims court 4 normally an under T5))) lawsuit4 you are not going to say 6t$is is an action for money damages in e>cess of T154)))6. Ef it isnt4 t$en t$is court $as no 0urisdiction4 and defendent can bring M,+E,C +, E-ME--. Ce>t allege t$e facts. ,nly one CAG-. ,I AC+E,C4 state *1AEC+EII and defendent . Contract is attac$ed. defendent breac$ed contract etc. -tate facts t$at support elements. <ou $a!e to state ultimate facts. -omet$ing li5e 6 2e $ad written agreement.6 . -$ow t$at you complied wit$ your side of t$e contract. Ce>t put $ow t$e defendent failed to comply on t$eir part 4 and $ow you suffered damages. Ce>t is t$e 2H./.I,/. C1AG-. t$at tells t$e 0udge w$at t$e *laintiff wants. Money damages against defendent 4 w$ere suc$ furt$er relief t$is court seems reasonable under t$e circumstances. &udge mig$t decide not to gi!e you interest4 but ma5e sure you add t$at amount.

Ior a multi?count complaint enter facts t$at support multiple counts. .>ample 4 you entered into a !erbal agreement. 1ist eac$ count separately. .> parte orders can be issued wit$out anyone but t$e plaintiff. +$ey only last for a s$ort time 4 typically 1) ? 14 days . After t$at 4 t$e party w$o as5ed for t$e .> parte order $as to go bac5 to court and pro!e t$at t$ere are grounds for a permanent order. T"e Use of Budici%l Notice *otions 2$y struggle to pro!e ob!ious facts@ .!ery court 8state or federal9 pro!ides an easy way to pro!e ob!ious facts. +$e met$od is called 6&udicial Cotice6. And4 you s$ould do it w$ene!er you can. Ma5e your opponents3 legal bullets bounce $armlessly off your educated c$est by mo!ing t$e court to ta5e 0udicial notice of ob!ious facts. on3t spend !aluable court energy trying to pro!e w$at t$e court must admit w$en you mo!e

it to do so. ,nce t$e court ta5es 0udicial notice of a fact4 t$e court3s order settles t$e issue for all purposes. Here3s a story of a simple use of &udicial Cotice casesF A *ro -e student went to try to reco!er a security deposit from $er former landlord4 w$o claimed s$e owed $im for cutting down a tree. +$e tree was a 7raAilian *epper tree4 a nuisance plant $ere in Ilorida4 related to poison i!y4 poison oa54 and poison sumac. -$e didn3t spin $er w$eels trying

to pro!e t$at tree was wort$less. -$e said4 6<our $onor4 E mo!e t$e court for an order ta5ing 0udicial notice t$at 7raAilian *epper trees $a!e been deemed a nuisance plant in Ilorida and t$erefore $a!e no commercial !alue to 0ustify t$is landlord3s wit$olding my client3s security deposit.6 +$e 0udge smiled4 pleased at t$e opportunity to tell us w$at $e 5new of t$is pes5y bus$. He leaned bac5 in $is leat$er?bac5ed c$air and put $is $ands be$ind $is $ead as if $e were going to tell a story to $is grandc$ildren. He tal5ed about t$ose nasty trees for at least 1) minutes4 detailing problems $e and $is family $ad and reciting concern officials $a!e wit$ t$e in!asion of t$is plant from Argentina w$ere it was seen as an attracti!e ornamental. He tal5ed about ras$es $e recei!ed on $is own $ands after w$ac5ing away at one of t$e menace trees in $is own bac5yard.

-uddenly4 $e leaned forward4 turned toward t$e landlord4 pronounced4 6Motion granted. &udgment for t$e plaintiff.6 -$e got $er deposit money. Ef a fact is commonly 5nown4 mo!e t$e court to ta5e 0udicial notice.

14 Defensi)e Str%tegies
A)oiding t"e Ans-er Most lawyers will file a motion to get out of answering a Buestion4 e!en if its legitimate or not. 2e want to M,(. +H. C,G/+ to enter an order to M,+E,C +, E-ME-- @ Co 4 we are mo!ing t$e court to enter an order dismissing t$e complaint for failure to -tate t$e CAG-. ,I AC+E,C. <ou want to dodge t$e lawsuit wit$ a 6flurry of motions6. ,nce a defendant files an Answer4 $e3s loc5ed in and misses t$is c$ance to dodge t$e lawsuit altoget$er. on3t file an Answer if you can dodge t$e lawsuit wit$ a 6flurry of motions6. Ene>perienced lawyers and pro se people ma5e t$e a!oidable mista5e of filing an Answer to plaintiff3s Complaint ... instead of using t$e flurry of motions.

M,+E,C +, E-ME-- t$e complaint Iailure to state a CAG-. ,I AC+E,C Iailure to 0oin an indispensible party 1ac5 of infersodum 0urisdiction 1ac5 of sub0ect matter 0urisdiction Motion to -tri5e M,+E,C +, E-ME-Motion for more definate statement Ef your really innocent C.(./ ACC.*+ A *1.A .A1

.ac$ of t$ese motions postpones t$e necessity of filing an Answer to t$e Complaint ... and gains you !aluable time and e!idence?gat$ering opportunities; En some cases it puts an end to t$e case. *eriod; Iailure to use t$e Ilurry of Motions wea5ens your case. M,(. +H. C,G/+ to enter t$e order dismissing t$e complaint. Motion denied4 you $a!e to as5 0udge w$y4 because you did not

gi!e $im t$e case . /ules 4 -tatues4 Constitutions 4 Cases4 sometimes public policy will strengt$en you case. Hi!e t$e 0udge t$e case to ma5e it easier . 2$erefore E as5 you to do motion to stri5e persuant to t$e rules >>>. +o dismiss for failure to state CAG-. ,I AC+E,C 4 $as no bearing on t$e case. Attac$ a copy of t$e case. -et it for $earing. Argue about if its stric5en from t$e 0ury. 2) days to file . Ef you dont want to answer complaint 4 file on 1%t$ day. <our statement s$ould contain no !erbs4 be !ague and ambiguous. efendent can not reasonably be reBuired to frame a responsi!e pleading.

cite rule to state t$e complaint more definately or in t$e alternati!ely to be dismissed. +$ree ways to get out of answering. /estate t$e complaint. Most $a!e to pay. -a!!y businessman finds out t$at attorney $as to rewrite. Answering4 t$ere is no need to admit if any part of t$at particular paragrap$ is false. ,nly way to $elp opposing counsel is if you admit. -o w$ene!er you can deny in true $onest trut$ you s$ould deny. And w$ene!er you can say 4 you $a!e no idea w$at $e is tal5ing about 4 you can say 6wit$out 5nowledge6. <ou dont $a!e to e>plain it. &udges dont read responses. +$is is only done w$en it comes time to trial. +$is is w$en you framed you pleadings. 1ots of complaints come to 0udge but 0udge will ne!er see it. Deep pleadings simple ? state your causes of action 4 dont e>plain w$en you answer 4 admit or deny or wit$out 5nowledge . Gse an affirmati!e defense e!erytime w$en you can . 7ring up all statues 4 statues of fraud 4 statues of limitations4 w$ate!er your defense is. E wasn3t t$ere. Ma5e t$at an affirmati!e defense. 7ring in ot$er people. Co?defendent 4 file counter?claim4 cross claims. +$ird party complaints. ont $elp t$e ot$er guy. ont admit anyt$ing.

DE-- 4 dont add anymore t$an w$at is necessary. Ho t$roug$ eac$ count. ont say anymore . Answer and counter?claim. Add lawsuit to an answer. *laintiff failed to pay. ont ma5e it complicated. Cross claim ? wit$in answer you $a!e lawsuit against C defendent. +$ey s$ared responsibility. +$ird *arty complaint. Affirmati!e defense. <ou $a!e to respond. Ior a bail bond you only need to come up wit$ 1):4 t$ey post t$e bail4 and you get out.

2$en you appear in court4 t$e bond is released. Ef bail is too $ig$ for you to afford4 at t$e arraignment 4 w$ic$ typically $appens wit$in 4# $ours4 ma5e a motion to t$e court for a bond reduction to lower t$e amount of bail. Cite t$at you are not a flig$t ris5 due to li!ing in same $ome for > amount of years4 or ne!er been in trouble before4 still li!e wit$ parents 4 most li5ely you will get out on a personal recogniAance bond. *lea eals . -ince it usually cost t$e court system lots of money to ta5e your case to trial e>pect multiple plea deals. Ef your truly innocent it will be !ery difficult to pro!e you guilty. Ef your guilty t$ere is still one last $ope F eferred ad0udication Deferred %djudic%tion is a form of plea deal a!ailable in !arious 0urisdictions4 w$ere a defendant pleads 6guilty6 or 6Co Contest6 to criminal c$arges in e>c$ange for meeting certain reBuirements laid out by t$e court wit$in an allotted period of time also ordered by t$e court. Gpon completion of t$e reBuirements4 w$ic$ may include probation4 treatment4 community ser!ice4 some form of community super!ision4 or some ot$er di!ersion program4 t$e defendant may a!oid a formal con!iction on t$eir record or $a!e t$eir case dismissed.U1V En some cases4 an order of nondisclosure can be obtained4 and sometimes a record can be e>punged. Anyone offered eferred Ad0udication in e>c$ange for a guilty plea s$ould first consult t$eir attorney regarding t$e e>act conseBuences of doing so. En all 0urisdictions4 t$e case itself t$at resulted in t$e eferred Ad0udication remains in t$e record permanently4 t$oug$ w$at effect t$is $as and $ow t$e record can be disco!ered or disclosed !aries. Ior e>ample4 t$e record always remains !isible to law enforcement and some $ig$?le!el go!ernment bac5ground c$ec5s4 but some states allow for t$e record to be rendered inaccessible to t$e public or pri!ate?sector bac5ground c$ec5s.

17 Co++on tr%ps
Do #ou "old -inning c%rds Dl%- %nd f%ctsE$ T"en #ou c%n -in before tri%l= 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. +$ere is no e!idence you cannot get in before trial. +$ere are no witnesses you cannot Buestion under oat$ before trial. +$ere are no documents or t$ings you cannot get in before trial. +$ere are no legal arguments you cannot ma5e before trial. +$ere is not$ing going to $appen at trial t$at cannot be made to $appen before trial.

+$e 6trying6 of your case wit$ t$e first pleading and continues wit$ disco!ery and motions before trial. Common reasons cases go to trial are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 1aAy lawyer w$o didn3t do t$e pre?trial wor5 $e could $a!e done. -tupid lawyer w$o didn3t 5now $ow to do t$e pre?trial wor5 $e could $a!e done. Hreedy lawyer w$o didn3t want to do t$e pre?trial wor5 $e could $a!e done. Co lawyer and no idea $ow to do t$e pre?trial wor5 t$at could $a!e been done.

+$e failed aut$entication letter. How do you 5now its aut$enticated.@ +$e affida!it is $eresay. ,b0ection your $onor its $eresay. Ef person can be cross?e>amined its aut$enticated. +elep$one court records. Ma5e t$em bring t$e records. C$ain of custody for records. <our case can 0ust disappear. Ets $eresay. 2$en to ob0ect. 2$en you $a!e a basis. <ou didnt preser!e your record. <ou didnt ob0ect for $eresay. Ef you want appelate court to $onor your ob0ection you need to cite t$e rule. /ule NNN. 2$at was t$e basis of t$e ob0ection. &udicial Cotice4 a fact is a fact. Ma5ing t$e &udge Cotice aut$ority. &udges dont li5e it. -implyfing +$e e!idence rule ? admissability. Credibility4 /eliability4 /ele!ance 8affects t$e outcome94 Cot rele!ant. Has to be rele!ant to t$e case. ,b0ection your $onor its irrele!ant. ,b0ection sustained. C$ild testimony ? not reliable. /ele!ance and /eliability 4 Credibility 4 Competence4 *ri!ilege4 rele!ant but wont come in if its pri!ilege. Ef its pre0udicial ? cant be used. p$otos 4 ob0ect on basis t$at its inflamatory and undooly pre0udice t$e court . Cot pri!ileged but pre0udicial. ont o!eruse it.

*resumes4 ne!er $ad a will 3 days before s$e dies 4 lea!es e!eryt$ing to relati!e. Carpenter presumption. Gndue influence. &ury is allowed to presume t$e undo influence. .!idence in a nuts$ell. Attorney Client pri!ilege. 2$o owns attorney client pri!ilege. Client owns pri!ileged. -pousal pri!ilege. .!idence 4 inconsistent prior statement. T"re%ten %ppe%l= /epeat internet legal myt$ology4 demand to see $is oat$ of office4 c$allenge $is 0urisdiction based on t$e color of t$e fringe on t$e courtroom flag4 and you3ll get absolutely now$ere; Cite %ppell%te court opinions t"%t %gree -it" #ou %nd -"%t #ou -%nt t"e judge doesn0t %gree -it" t"ose %ppell%te court opinions= Et3s stupid to marc$ into court demanding one3s 6Constitutional /ig$ts64 e>pecting t$e 0udge to admit your e!idence4 deny e!idence and tric5s presented by your opponent4 and award 0udgment in your fa!or. Et 0ust doesn3t wor5 t$at way; Ma5e it clear t$at you will win on appeal if t$e 0udge rules against you; %nd t"re%ten %ppe%l if

19 Essenti%l Court Roo+ O/jections

Essenti%l O/jections C"ec.list A Fuic.&reference list for #our tri%l note/oo. By Leonard Bucklin .>cerpted from 7uilding +rial Coteboo5s +$ere are only a couple doAen common e!idence ob0ections t$at are li5ely to be used in most trials. .!ery e>perienced ci!il trial lawyer $ears t$em o!er and o!er. +$ere are a number of ot$er ob0ections t$at can be made. -ome e!idence te>ts gi!e lists of 15) or more. 7ut for all practical purposes4 t$ere are only t$e basic two doAen t$at you need to remember wit$ unBualified certainty and sure familiarity. *ut a copy of t$is PIormF ,b0ections C$ec5listQ in your trial noteboo5 be$ind +ab 164 P1aw.Q !ARNING Most ob0ections are not allowed to be made during depositions. Ior t$e muc$ s$orter list of !alid or in!alid ob0ections during depositions refer to t$e discussion in W4).3 of t$is boo5. Iollowing t$is alp$abetical listing is a s$ort discussion4 in order4 of eac$ of t$e ob0ections4 in t$e format of 819 a form statement of t$e indi!idual ob0ection4 829 a s$ort discussion for Buic5 reference4 and t$en 839 a form response to t$e ob0ection. T"e B%sic T-o DoHen( Iuic. %lp"%/etic%l list for reference %nd refres"+ent 1. Admitted. 2. Argumentati!e. 3. Assumes facts not in e!idence. 4. 7est e!idence rule. 5. 7eyond t$e scope of direct J cross J redirect e>amination. 6. Completeness. ". Compound Buestion J double Buestion. #. Confusing J !ague J ambiguous. %. Counsel is testifying. 1).Iorm. 11.Ioundation. 12.Hearsay 8rules #)14 #)24 #)3 and #)49. 13.Emproper impeac$ment. 14.Encompetent. 15.1ac5 of personal 5nowledge. 16.1eading. 1".Misstates e!idence J misBuotes witness J improper c$aracteriAation of e!idence. 1#.Carrati!e. 1%.,pinion 8rules ")1 and ")29.

2).*retrial ruling. 21.*ri!ileged communication. 22.*ublic policy. 23./ule 4)3 8undue waste of time or undue pre0udiceJimmaterialJirrele!antJ repetiti!e J as5ed and answered J cumulati!e J surprise9. 24.-peculati!e. Ad+itted P,7&.C+E,CF <our Honor4 t$e matter already $as been admitted by a stipulation w$ic$ is in t$e record Uor already $as been establis$ed by t$e courtMs orderV. Gnder /ule 4)3 we do not need to waste time on somet$ing t$at does not $a!e to be decided.Q E-CG--E,CF Ef a matter $as been admitted4 it does not need to be t$e sub0ect of any testimony or e!idence to be considered as true. +$e mec$anics of getting t$e item considered by t$e trier of fact depends on w$et$er it is a benc$ or 0ury trial. Ef t$e trial is to t$e court4 simply draw t$e 0udgeMs attention to t$e admission as being a part of t$e record in t$e case. Ef t$e trial is to t$e 0ury4 formally mo!e t$e court to instruct t$e 0ury t$at t$e fact is to be ta5en as being a part of t$e e!idence. -ometimes a party may wis$ to a!oid $a!ing e!idence wit$ a strong emotional appeal broug$t before t$e 0ury and may agree to a fact to a!oid t$e troubling e!idence. +$us4 for e>ample4 a defendant dri!er mig$t admit t$at $e was under t$e influence of into>icating be!erages to a!oid t$e 0ury !iewing a police !ideotape s$owing $is GE arrest and $is woeful condition or $is combati!eness at t$e scene. ,nce $a!ing admitted t$e fact4 t$e party will want to ob0ect to e!idence of t$e fact to pre!ent t$e emp$asis of t$e fact or t$e emotional component of t$e e!idence of t$e fact. +$e ob0ection t$at Pit already $as been admittedQ is not a !alid ob0ection in itself. Gnder Iederal /ule 4)2 all rele!ant e!idence is admissible4 e!en t$oug$ it is undisputed. +$e ob0ection of PadmittedQ is correctly an ob0ection under /ule 4)3 for t$e court to e>clude rele!ant testimony or e>$ibits as needlessly cumulati!e and t$erefore as a waste of time. /ule 4)3 s$ould be mentioned if you are doing t$e ob0ecting. P+$e fact to w$ic$ t$e e!idence is directed need not be in dispute. 2$ile situations will arise w$ic$ call for t$e e>clusion of e!idence offered to pro!e a point conceded by t$e opponent4 t$e ruling s$ould be made on t$e basis of suc$ considerations as waste of time and undue pre0udice 8see /ule 4)394 rat$er t$an under any general reBuirement t$at e!idence is admissible only if directed to matters in dispute.Q Ad!isory CommitteeMs Cotes on Ied. /ules .!id.4 /ule 4)1. Ef your ad!ersary is ma5ing t$e PadmittedQ ob0ection4 s$ow t$e 0udge t$e following language from United States v. GrassiF PEn Parr v. United States4 255 I.2d #64 ##4 cert. denied4 35# G.-. #24 81%5#94 we $eld t$at4 as a general rule4 a party may not preclude $is ad!ersaryMs proof by an admission or offer to stipulate.Q ... A piece of e!idence can $a!e probati!e !alue e!en in t$e e!ent of an offer to stipulate to t$e issue on w$ic$ t$e e!idence is offered. A cold stipulation can depri!e a party Pof t$e legitimate moral force of $is e!idence4MM % Wigmore on vidence W25%1 at 5#% 83rd ed. 1%4)94 and can ne!er fully substitute for tangible4 p$ysical e!idence or t$e testimony of witnesses. En most cases4 a party $as t$e rig$t Pto present to t$e 0ury a picture of t$e e!ents relied upon.MM Parr! su"ra4 255 I.2d at ##.Q United States v. Grassi4 6)2 I.2d 11%2 85t$ Cir. 1%"%94 vacated and remanded on other grounds4 44# G.-. %)2 81%#)9. /.-*,C-.F P<our Honor4 under .!idence /ule 4)24 we $a!e a rig$t to present undisputed e!idence4 e!en t$oug$ ad!erse counsel does not want it in t$e case. oes t$e Court wis$ us to approac$ t$e benc$ and s$ow t$e court an e>cellent citation on t$e point@Q

Argu+ent%ti)e P,7&.C+E,CF <our Honor4 t$e Buestion is argumentati!eK counsel is arguing wit$ t$e witness instead of as5ing for facts.Q E-CG--E,CF Argumentati!e Buestions4 w$en directed to an ad!erse witness4 freBuently are not recogniAed by counsel or e!en t$e court. Ef t$e same Buestion were directed to t$e e>aminerMs friendly witness4 it would be recogniAed as leading and not calling for any facts from t$e witness. Addressed to an ad!erse witness4 a Buestion is argumentati!e if it does not call for new facts4 and merely as5s t$e witness to agree or disagree wit$ a conclusion drawn by t$e e>aminer from pro!ed or assumed facts. -ee #attfeld v. $ester4 32 C22d 2%1 8Minn. 1%4#9. Argumentati!e Buestions may be proper if directed to an ad!erse party4 as an attempt to secure a 0udicial admission contrary to t$e position of t$e party. Argumentati!e Buestions also may be proper if an opinion $as been gi!en by t$e witness. +$en counsel may properly state different facts t$an t$ose used by t$e witness in forming $isJ$er opinion and inBuire if a different conclusionary opinion is correct. Allowance of argumentati!e ob0ections4 li5e all t$e ot$er ob0ections wit$in t$e rubric of Pob0ection as to formQ 8w$ic$ see4 below9 is wit$in t$e discretion of t$e trial 0udge. /.-*,C-.F P<our Honor4 E am testing t$e testimony of t$is witness.Q Assu+es f%ct not in e)idence P,7&.C+E,CF <our Honor4 t$e Buestion assumes facts not in e!idence. 2e are $ere to as5 for facts from t$e witnesses4 not assume t$at a fact e>ists.Q E-CG--E,CF +$e facts w$ic$ are not in e!idence cannot be used as t$e basis of a Buestion4 unless t$e court allows t$e Buestion Psub0ect to later connecting up.Q A court in t$e interest of good administration and usage of time may allow t$e missing facts to be broug$t in later. /.-*,C-.F P<our Honor4 we will $a!e t$ose facts later in t$e case4 but t$is witness is $ere now and it is t$e best use of time to as5 t$at Buestion now.Q Best e)idence rule P,7&.C+E,CF <our Honor4 t$is is not t$e best e!idence. +$e original document is t$e best e!idence.Q E-CG--E,CF +$ere are t$ree aspects to t$e P7est .!idence /ule.Q +$e first aspect is t$e one most often in!o5ed todayF ordinarily a non?e>pert witness is not allowed to describe w$at is in a document wit$out t$e document itself being introduced into e!idence. *ut t$e document into e!idence first4 t$en $a!e t$e lay witness tal5 about w$at is in it. +$e second aspect is reBuiring t$e original document to be introduced into e!idence instead of a copy O if t$e original is a!ailable. +$e original is not a!ailable if a searc$ for it did not find t$e original4 or if it is in t$e $ands of an ad!ersary4 or it is beyond t$e 0urisdiction of t$e court to subpoena. /eBuiring t$e original document 8t$e best e!idence9 to be a!ailable for e>amination insures t$at not$ing $as been altered in any way. +$e best e!idence rule arose during t$e past centuries w$en a copy was made by $and4 often by persons not trained to be careful and often not e>act as to eac$ word. *arties and courts sensibly assumed t$at4 if t$e original was not produced4 t$ere was a good c$ance of a scri!enerMs error 8or fraud if t$e copy were $andwritten by a party to t$e litigation9. Cow t$at PcopyQ usually means a p$otocopy4 or an automatic printout of electronic data entries4 t$e c$ance of a copy containing a mec$anical error is slig$t. Courts are reluctant to reBuire needless effort to find t$e original if t$ere is no dispute about t$e fairness and adeBuacy of a p$otocopy. +$e court $as discretion to allow a copy to be used instead of t$e original. Ied. /ules .!id.4 /ule 1))14 1))24 1))34 and similar state e!idence code pro!isions allow t$e use of mec$anically produced duplicates unless a party $as raised a genuine Buestion about t$e accuracy of t$e copy or can s$ow t$at its use would be unfair. Howe!er4 t$ere is always a danger of a 0udge reBuiring t$e original of a document4 so you must be ready to produce originals of any documents in!ol!ed in your case or to produce e!idence of w$y you canMt. +$e t$ird aspect of t$e best e!idence rule is t$at in past centuries4 compilations of documents only in!ol!ed a few documents. Hence4 at one time4 t$e original documents $ad to be offered into

e!idence4 not someoneMs summariAation of t$e decrements. +oday4 compilations or summaries of !oluminous records 8typical in printouts of indi!idual entries of electronic entries in t$e format of a report of all t$e entries9 present t$e problem of per$aps t$ousands of documents or data entries to be considered by t$e trier of fact. Modern e!idence law $as sol!ed t$e problem by pro!iding t$atF +$e contents of !oluminous writings4 recordings4 or p$otograp$s w$ic$ cannot con!eniently be e>amined in court may be presented in t$e form of a c$art4 summary4 or calculation. +$e originals4 or duplicates4 s$all be made a!ailable for e>amination or copying4 or bot$4 by ot$er parties at a reasonable time and place. +$e court may order t$at t$ey be produced in court. Ied. /ules .!id.4 /ule 1))6. /.-*,C-.F ependent on t$e aspect of t$e 7est .!idence rule in!ol!ed in t$e ob0ectionF U,ffer t$e document into e!idenceV UP<our Honor4 t$is is admissible as a copy under .!idence /ule 1))3QV UP<our Honor4 t$is is a summary admissible under .!idence /ule 1))6QV. 7eyond t$e scope of 8direct4 cross4 redirect9 e>amination. P,7&.C+E,CF <our Honor4 t$is Buestion is beyond t$e scope of t$e direct e>amination 8cross? e>amination9.Q E-CG--E,CF Alt$oug$ t$e court $as discretion to allow it4 ordinarily t$e scope of a cross? e>amination cannot e>ceed t$e scope of t$e direct e>amination. 1i5ewise4 redirect e>amination ordinarily cannot e>ceed t$e scope of t$e cross?e>amination. +$e purpose for restricting an e>amination to t$e scope of t$e opponentMs last pre!ious e>amination is to pre!ent an e!er?enlarging and ne!er?ending scope of testimony. +$e dictionary meaning of PscopeQ is Pt$e area co!ered by a gi!en acti!ity or sub0ect.Q +$erefore4 $ow you define t$e Pscope of t$e e>aminationQ is important in ma5ing t$e ob0ection or in responding to it. Ior e>ample4 an ob0ector may be better off to define t$e scope of direct e>amination as Pe!ents on &anuary 6t$4Q instead of Pw$y and $ow t$e accident $appened.Q En t$e testimony of an e>pert4 t$e scope of w$at is wit$in t$e direct e>amination is not limited to t$e e>act items t$e e>pert tal5ed about. 7ecause t$e e>pert is an e>pert in an entire field and is t$ere to e>plain items in t$e field of endea!or4 t$e scope of direct is usually understood to be e!eryt$ing in t$e e>pertMs field of 5nowledge t$at bears on t$e case in issue. +$us t$e cross?e>amination can del!e into ot$er aspects of t$e case4 including as5ing Buestions to confirm parts of t$e e>aminerMs own case. /.-*,C-.F P<our Honor4 t$is is wit$in t$e scope of t$e direct e>amination 8cross?e>amination9 because Ue>plainV.Q Co+pleteness P,7&.C+E,CF <our Honor4 we ob0ect to counsel only introducing part of t$e writing 8con!ersationJactJdeclaration9. Gnder t$e e!idence rule pro!iding for completeness4 we mo!e to introduce additional parts now. E-CG--E,CF 2$en a writing or recorded statement or part t$ereof is introduced by a party4 an ad!erse party may reBuire t$e introduction at that time of any ot$er part or any ot$er writing or recorded statement w$ic$ oug$t in fairness to be considered contemporaneously wit$ it. Ied. /ules .!id.4 /ule 1)6. U.mp$asis supplied.V /ule 1)6 is an e>pression of w$at 2igmore termed Pt$e rules of completeness.Q (EE Wigmore on vidence 2)%44 et seB. 83d ed. 1%4)9. +$e rule is based on two considerations. +$e first is t$e misleading impression created by ta5ing matters out of conte>t. +$e second is t$e inadeBuacy of repairing an ad!erse 0ury impression if delayed to a point later in t$e trial. -ee #c%ormick on vidence W56. Many states $a!e rules similar to t$e federal /ule 1)6. +$e longer +e>as rule is gi!en below for an e>ample. 2$en part of an act4 declaration4 con!ersation4 writing or recorded statement is gi!en in e!idence

by one party4 t$e w$ole on t$e same sub0ect may be inBuired into by t$e ot$er4 and any ot$er act4 declaration4 writing or recorded statement w$ic$ is necessary to ma5e it fully understood or to e>plain t$e same may also be gi!en in e!idence4 as w$en a letter is read4 all letters on t$e same sub0ect between t$e same parties may be gi!en. 2riting or recorded statement includes depositions. +e>as /ules .!id.4 /ule 1)". +$is is a good e>ample of $ow federal and state rules differ. Cotice t$e federal rule is limited to writings and recorded statements and does not apply to con!ersationsK t$e +e>as rule4 gi!en as an e>ample abo!e4 goes on to add p$ysical acts4 oral declarations by one person4 and con!ersations. Cf.4 #innesota &ules vid.4 /ule 1)"4 Comment 8Pt$e rule is not intended to apply to con!ersationsQ9. +$e +e>as rule adds pro!isions t$at pre!ents arguments 8w$ic$ you mig$t want to ma5e in ot$er states9 about4 w$et$er a deposition is a writing or record statement or somet$ing elseK or4 w$et$er a letter written 1) years earlier by t$e opposite party to t$e correspondence can be introduced. +$e federal rule4 but not all state rules4 ma5es it mandatory for t$e trial court to allow ob0ecting counsel to put t$eir portions into e!idence at t$e same time. +$e federal rule of completeness allows you to interrupt t$e ad!ersaryMs presentation of e!idence and introduce part of your own. En practice4 t$is rule of completeness arises most often w$en an opposing attorney reads part of a deposition into e!idence4 or introduces only portions of a document. +$e rule of completeness does not in any way reBuire you to introduce t$e ot$er portions w$en your opposition doesK instead you may c$ose to de!elop t$e matter on cross?e>amination or as part of your own case4 w$ic$ may well be preferable. /.-*,C-.F P<our Honor4 of course w$en E finis$ reading t$is into t$e record4 counsel can read w$ate!er else s$e feels rele!ant to add.Q Co+pound FuestionJ dou/le Fuestion P,7&.C+E,CF <our Honor4 t$is is a double Buestion. Ef t$e witness answers4 it will be confusing as to w$ic$ part of t$e Buestion is being answered.Q E-CG--E,CF A compound Buestion as5s two or more separate Buestions wit$in t$e framewor5 of a single Buestion. +$e ob0ection is generally reser!ed for situations w$ere4 if t$e witness answers PyesQ or Pno4Q it will be confusing as to w$ic$ part of t$e Buestion is being answered. Et is one of t$ose ob0ections t$at falls wit$in t$e rubric of t$e Pob0ection as to formQ 8discussed below9. /.-*,C-.F -eparate t$e Buestion into t$e two parts. Confusing K )%gue K +isle%ding K %+/iguous P,7&.C+E,CF <our Honor4 t$e Buestion is ambiguous. +$e witness may not 5now wit$ certainty w$at is being as5ed4 and we may not 5now wit$ certainty w$at t$e answer tells us.Q E-CG--E,CF Confusing J !ague J misleading J ambiguous are all words t$at con!ey t$e ob0ection t$at t$e Buestion is not posed in a clear and precise manner so t$at t$e witness 5nows wit$ certainty w$at information is being soug$t. +$e ob0ection appeals to t$e courtMs discretion in pro!iding a fair trial wit$out witnesses being confused. /.-*,C-.F P<our $onor4 E can restate t$at Buestion.Q Counsel is testifying. P,7&.C+E,CF <our Honor4 counsel is trying to testify $imself4 instead of $a!ing t$e witness do it.Q E-CG--E,CF +$e ob0ection t$at PCounsel is testifyingQ is $eard so often4 t$at we include it in t$is list of Pt$e basic two doAen.Q Howe!er4 t$e ob0ection usually could 0ust as well be p$rased as PleadingQ or Pargumentati!eQ or Passumes facts not in e!idence.Q +$e ob0ection is to parts of t$e Buestion w$ic$ contain facts or opinions not in e!idence. /.-*,C-.F epending on t$e type of Buestion4 respond4 as you would to an ob0ection for PleadingQ or Pargumentati!eQ or Passumes facts not in e!idence.Q 3or+

,7&.C+E,CF P<our Honor4 we ob0ect to t$e form of t$e Buestion.Q E-CG--E,CF An ob0ection t$at t$e PformQ is improper is a generaliAation4 w$ic$ includes di!erse problems 8eac$ of w$ic$ is a specific ob0ection9. +$e ob0ection is $eard a great deal4 and $onored by courts Buite often w$en t$ey see t$e specific problem. ,t$er times4 t$e court does not rule on t$e ob0ection4 but simply directs ad!erse counsel to P/ep$rase your Buestion4 counsel.Q +$e ob0ection of PformQ s$ould instead be a specific ob0ection t$at t$e BuestionF Es a double Buestion. Es misleading or ambiguous 8to eit$er witness or 0ury9. Es argumentati!e. Es pre0udicial or abusi!e in its insinuations. Es leading. Es repetitious. Assumes facts not in t$e record. Iails to include rele!ant facts found in t$e record. Calls for a legal conclusion. Calls for mere speculation. Calls for an opinion. Calls for a narrati!e. /.-*,C-.F P<our Honor4 may counsel be reBuested to inform t$e court in w$at specific is t$e form of my Buestion insufficient4 so t$at E can remedy any problem@Q 8+$en4 w$en informed4 restate t$e Buestion to eliminate t$e bad form.9 !ARNING &ust saying P,b0ection to t$e formQ or P,b0ection to t$e foundationQ is a laAy indefinite generaliAation4 w$ic$ includes e!ery possible way t$e form or foundation is wrong. +$ere are dangers in ma5ing t$e general ob0ection of PformQ or Pfoundation.Q -ee t$e discussion at P-tate your specific grounds brieflyQ in W52.2 of t$is te>t. 3ound%tion P,7&.C+E,CF <our Honor4 we ob0ect to t$e lac5 of foundation because Ue.g.4 t$ere is no s$owing of t$e witnessMs time and place of obser!ation of t$e facts called forV.Q E-CG--E,CF .!idence is competent if t$e proof t$at is being offered meets certain traditional reBuirements of reliability. +$e preliminary s$owing t$at t$e e!idence meets t$ose tests is called t$e foundational e!idence. Ef t$ere is no ob0ection made to t$e lac5 of foundation before t$e testimony is recei!ed4 t$e ob0ection is wai!ed. Ef an ob0ection to t$e foundation if not madeK t$e testimony cannot later be t$e sub0ect of a motion to stri5e. +$e ob0ecting attorney must identify w$at is necessary to correct t$e lac5 of foundation for t$e deponent to answer. Ef t$e Buestioning attorney as5s w$at is wrong wit$ t$e foundation4 t$en t$e ob0ector eit$er must pro!ide specific details of w$at is missing in t$e foundation or else be ruled to $a!e wai!ed t$e ob0ection by ma5ing a senseless ob0ection. 8PAn ob0ection to foundation is futile unless it is sufficiently specific to afford t$e opposing party opportunity to cure it.Q United States v. #ichaels4 "26 I.2d 13)"4 1314 8#t$ Cir. 1%#49.9 Ef t$e witness is a layperson4 t$e usual foundation ob0ection is a lac5 of s$owing t$at t$e witness $as personal 5nowledge of t$e facts w$ic$ t$e Buestion see5s. Ef t$e witness is an e>pert4 t$e usual foundation ob0ection is a lac5 of s$owing t$at t$e e>pert is Bualified to gi!e t$e opinion soug$t. /.-*,C-.F P<our Honor4 may counsel be reBuested to inform t$e court in w$at specific is t$e foundation insufficient4 so t$at E can remedy any problem@Q 8+$en4 w$en informed4 restate t$e Buestion or ot$erwise pro!ide t$e specific missing part of t$e foundation.9

He%rs%# Drules @C1, @C4, @C7, %nd @C9E P,7&.C+E,CF <our Honor4 t$is calls for $earsay.Q E-CG--E,CF Hearsay is not admissible unless it comes wit$in one of t$e many e>ceptions. Hearsay is e!idence and can be used by itself to support a !erdict if it is recei!ed wit$out ob0ection. Ied. /ules .!id.4 /ules #)14 #)34 and #)4 8or t$e eBui!alent state rules9 must be in your trial noteboo5 or ot$erwise a!ailable to you during trial. +$e e>ceptions to t$e $earsay ob0ection are so important O and needed so often during trial O we are going to gi!e you an outline in t$is Buic5 reference c$ec5list. !ARNING +$e following is a partial outline 8not t$e full te>t9 of t$e Iederal $earsay rule. +$is trial noteboo5 outline is $ere only to refres$ your memory w$en t$e full applicable state or federal rule is not a!ailable to you. /ule #)1. PHearsayQ is a statement4 ot$er t$an one made by t$e declarant w$ile testifying at t$e trial or $earing4 offered in e!idence to pro!e t$e trut$ of t$e matter asserted. A statement is not "e%rs%# if O 819 +$e declarant testifies at t$e trial or $earing and is sub0ect to cross?e>amination concerning t$e statement4 and t$e statement is 8A9 Enconsistent wit$ t$e declarantMs testimony and was gi!en under oat$K 879 Consistent wit$ t$e declarantMs testimony and is offered to rebut an e>pressed or implied c$arge against t$e declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or moti!eK 8C9 ,ne of identification of a person made after percei!ing t$e person. 829 +$e statement is offered against a party %nd is a statement 8A9 Made personally by t$e partyK 879 ,f w$ic$ t$e party $as manifested an adoption or belief in its trut$K 8C9 7y a person aut$oriAed by t$e party to ma5e t$e statementK 8 9 7y t$e partyMs agent or ser!ant concerning a matter wit$in t$e scope of t$e agency or employment4 made during t$e e>istence of t$e relations$ipK 8.9 7y a co?conspirator of a party. /ule #)3. +$e following are not e>cluded by t$e $earsay rule4 e!en t$oug$ t$e declarant is a!ailable as a witness. 819 *resent sense impression. A statement describing or e>plaining an e!ent or condition4 made w$ile t$e declarant was percei!ing t$e e!ent or condition4 or immediately t$ereafter. 829 .>cited utterance. A statement relating to a startling e!ent or condition made w$ile t$e declarant was under t$e stress of e>citement caused by t$e e!ent or condition. 839 Mental4 emotional4 or p$ysical condition. A statement of t$e declarantMs t$en e>isting state of mind4 emotion4 sensation4 or p$ysical condition 8suc$ as intent4 plan4 moti!e4 design4 mental feeling4 pain and bodily $ealt$94 but not including a statement of memory or belief to pro!e t$e fact remembered or belie!ed. 849 Made for medical treatment. -tatements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical $istory4 or past or present symptoms4 pain4 or sensations4 or t$e inception or general c$aracter of t$e cause or e>ternal source t$ereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. 859 /ecorded recollection. A memorandum or record concerning a matter about w$ic$ a witness once $ad 5nowledge but now $as insufficient recollection to enable t$e witness to testify fully and accurately4 s$own to $a!e been made or adopted by t$e witness w$en t$e matter was fres$ in t$e witnessM memory and to reflect t$at 5nowledge correctly. Ef admitted4

t$e memorandum or record may be read into e!idence but may not itself be recei!ed as an e>$ibit unless offered by an ad!erse party. 869 /ecords of regularly conducted business acti!ity. A memorandum4 report4 record4 or data compilation4 of acts4 e!ents4 conditions4 opinions4 or diagnoses4 made at or near t$e time by4 or from information transmitted by4 a person wit$ 5nowledge4 if 5ept in t$e course of a regularly conducted business acti!ity4 and if it was t$e regular practice of t$at business acti!ity to ma5e t$e memorandum4 report4 record4 or data compilation4 all as s$own by t$e testimony of t$e custodian or ot$er Bualified witness4 or by certification t$at complies wit$ /ule %)281194 /ule %)28129 or a statute permitting certification4 unless t$e source of information or t$e met$od or circumstances of preparation indicate a lac5 of trustwort$iness. 8"9 Absence of entry in records 5ept in regularly conducted business acti!ity4 to pro!e t$e nonoccurrence or none>istence of t$e matter. 8#9 *ublic records and reports. /ecords4 reports4 statements4 or data compilations of public offices or agencies4 setting fort$ 8A9 t$e acti!ities of t$e office or agency4 or 879 matters obser!ed pursuant to duty imposed by law and as to w$ic$ matters t$ere was a duty to report4 e>cluding4 $owe!er4 in criminal cases matters obser!ed by police officers and ot$er law enforcement personnel4 or 8C9 in ci!il actions and proceedings4 factual findings resulting from an in!estigation made pursuant to aut$ority granted by law unless t$e sources of information or ot$er circumstances indicate lac5 of trustwort$iness. 8%9 /ecords of !ital statistics. /ecords of birt$s4 deat$s4 or marriages4 if t$e report t$ereof was made to a public office pursuant to reBuirements of law. 81)9 Absence of public record or entry by e!idence in t$e form of a certification in accordance wit$ /ule %)24 or testimony4 t$at diligent searc$ failed to disclose t$e record4 report4 statement4 or data compilation4 or entry. 8119 8129 and 8139 Iamily Iacts. /eligious organiAationMs statements of personal or family $istory4 contained in a regularly 5ept record. Marriage4 baptismal4 and similar certificates issued at t$e time of t$e act or wit$in a reasonable time t$ereafter. Iamily records of fact concerning personal or family $istory contained in family 7ibles4 genealogies4 c$arts4 engra!ings on rings4 inscriptions on family portraits4 engra!ings on urns4 crypts4 or tombstones4 or t$e li5e. 8149 /ecords of documents affecting an interest in property4 if t$e record is a record of a public office. 8159 -tatements in documents affecting an interest in property. A statement contained in a document purporting to establis$ or affect an interest in property if t$e matter stated was rele!ant to t$e purposes of t$e document4 unless dealings wit$ t$e property since t$e document was made $a!e been inconsistent wit$ t$e trut$ of t$e statement or t$e purport of t$e document. 8169 -tatements in ancient documents4 to witF a document in e>istence 2) years or more4 t$e aut$enticity of w$ic$ is establis$ed. 81"9 Mar5et reports4 commercial publications. Mar5et Buotations4 tabulations4 lists4 directories4 or ot$er publis$ed compilations4 generally used and relied upon by t$e public or by persons in particular occupations. 81#9 1earned treatises. +o t$e e>tent called to t$e attention of an e>pert witness upon cross? e>amination or relied upon by t$e e>pert witness in direct e>amination4 statements contained in publis$ed treatises4 periodicals4 or pamp$lets on a sub0ect of science or art4 establis$ed as a reliable aut$ority by t$e testimony or admission of t$e witness or by ot$er e>pert testimony or by 0udicial notice. Ef admitted4 t$e statements may be read into e!idence but may not be recei!ed as e>$ibits. 81%9 /eputation concerning personal or family $istory among members of a personMs family4 or among a personMs associates4 or in t$e community4 concerning a personMs birt$4 adoption4

marriage4 di!orce4 deat$4 legitimacy4 relations$ip by blood4 adoption4 or marriage4 ancestry4 or ot$er similar fact of a personMs personal or family $istory. 82)9 /eputation concerning boundaries of or customs affecting lands in t$e communityK or reputation as to e!ents of general $istory important to t$e community or state or nation in w$ic$ located. 8219 /eputation as to c$aracter. /eputation of a personMs c$aracter among associates or in t$e community. 8229 &udgment of pre!ious con!iction. .!idence of a final 0udgment entered after a trial or upon a plea of guilty 8but not upon a plea of nolo contendere94 ad0udging a person guilty of a crime punis$able by deat$ or imprisonment in e>cess of one year4 to pro!e any fact essential to sustain t$e 0udgment. 8239 &udgments as to personal4 family4 or general $istory4 or boundaries. /ule #)4 8A9. A witness is una!ailable if t$e declarantF 819 Es e>empted by ruling of t$e court on t$e ground of pri!ilege from testifyingK 829 /efuses to testify despite an order of t$e court to do soK 839 +estifies to a lac5 of memory of t$e sub0ect matter of t$e declarantMs statementK 849 Es unable to be present due to deat$ or p$ysical or mental illness or infirmityK 859 Es absent from t$e $earing and t$e proponent of a statement $as been unable to procure t$e declarantMs attendance by process or ot$er reasonable means. /ule #)4 879. +$e following are not e>cluded by t$e $earsay rule4 e!en t$oug$ t$e declarant is a!ailable as a witness. 819 Iormer testimony. +estimony gi!en as a witness at anot$er $earing of t$e same or a different proceeding4 or in a deposition ta5en in compliance wit$ law in t$e course of t$e same or anot$er proceeding4 if t$e party against w$om t$e testimony is now offered4 or4 in a ci!il action or proceeding4 a predecessor in interest4 $ad an opportunity and similar moti!e to de!elop t$e testimony by direct4 cross4 or redirect e>amination. 829 -tatement under belief of impending deat$. 839 -tatement against interest. A statement w$ic$ was at t$e time of its ma5ing so far contrary to t$e declarantMs pecuniary or proprietary interest4 or so far tended to sub0ect t$e declarant to ci!il or criminal liability4 or to render in!alid a claim by t$e declarant against anot$er4 t$at a reasonable person in t$e declarantMs position would not $a!e made t$e statement unless belie!ing it to be true. 849 -tatement of personal or family $istory of t$e declarantMs own $istory or a statement concerning t$e personal or family $istory of anot$er person4 if t$e declarant was so intimately associated wit$ t$e ot$erMs family as to be li5ely to $a!e accurate information. Hearsay is an ob0ection you are bound to $ear at least once in e!ery trial. /efres$ your memory of t$e list of e>ceptions before t$e trial. /.-*,C-.F P<our Honor4 t$is is an e>ception to t$e $earsay rule4 under .!idence /ule UciteV.Q Emproper impeac$ment. P,7&.C+E,CF <our Honor4 t$is is outside t$e boundary of proper impeac$ment.Q E-CG--E,CF +$e e!idence rules generally only aut$oriAe t$e following met$ods of impeac$mentF 1. *oint out contradictory e!idence or prior inconsistent statementsK 2. -$ow bias or pre0udice 8paid witness4 stands to gain by !erdict one way4 friend4 or ri!al of party9K

3. -$ow reputation for poor c$aracter for $onestyK 4. -$ow con!iction of a crime t$at in!ol!ed dis$onesty or false statement or imprisonment for more t$an one yearK 5. -$ow poor memory4 or lac5 of p$ysical or mental ability to obser!e4 remember4 or recountK 6. ,n cross?e>amination4 as5 t$e witness to agree t$at $e committed specific instances of past conduct bearing on t$e witnessMs credibility for trut$fulness. .>cept for criminal con!ictions4 t$e witnessMs answer is conclusi!e4 and e>trinsic e!idence is not allowed to contradict w$at t$e witness says concerning $is own conduct. /ead Ied. /. .!id.4 /ules 4)44 6)"4 6)# and 6)%4 or your eBui!alent state rules of e!idence4 for t$e e>act rules4 w$ic$ in eac$ 0urisdiction $a!e defined limitations on types and use of impeac$ment material. P<et t$e trial court $as discretion to e>clude impeac$ment e!idence4 including a prior inconsistent statement4 if it is collateral4 cumulati!e4 confusing4 or misleading.Q Peo"le v. 'ouglas4 5) Cal. 3d 46#4 at 5)%4 "## *.2d 64) 81%%)9. /.-*,C-.F P<our Honor4 E am as5ing items w$ic$ bear upon t$e witnessMs credibility.Q Encompetent. P,7&.C+E,CF +$e witness is incompetent because....Q 8+$e e>$ibit is incompetent because....9 E-CG--E,CF +$e term PcompetencyQ refers to t$e minimal Bualifications someone must $a!e to be a witness. En reference to an e>$ibit4 t$e term PcompetencyQ refers to t$e minimal foundation t$at p$ysical items must $a!e to be an e>$ibit. Ior bot$ a person and an e>$ibit4 PcompetencyQ also refers to a lac5 of any statutory or ot$er legal bar based on public policy. En order to be a witness4 a person ot$er t$an an e>pert 8e>perts are a special case discussed later in t$e te>t94 must meet si> basic reBuirementsF 1. +a5e some 5ind of oat$ to tell t$e trut$. 2. Ha!e percei!ed somet$ing rele!ant to t$e case. A lay witness may only testify to matters about w$ic$ t$e witness $as personal 5nowledge. Ied. /. .!id.4 /ule 6)2 says Pa witness may not testify to a matter unless e!idence is introduced sufficient to support a finding t$at t$e witness $as personal 5nowledge of t$e matter.Q +$at means t$e attorney as5ing t$e Buestions s$ould first establis$ by preliminary Buestions t$at t$e person $as actual personal 5nowledge of somet$ing rele!ant. 3. 7e able to remember w$at $e or s$e percei!ed. 4. 7e able to communicate in some sensible way. 5. Cot be disBualified by some statutory or ot$er legal bar based on public policy. -ee discussion4 below4 regarding t$e public policy ob0ections. <oung c$ildren must be s$own to be capable of understanding t$e oat$ and communicating in some sensible way. +$e usual rule is t$at a c$ild is competent if t$e c$ild can recollect and narrate t$e facts and $as a moral sense of obligation to tell t$e trut$. +$e 0udge and attorneys $a!e to Buestion t$e c$ild to determine t$e communication s5ills of t$e c$ild and also Buestion to determine if t$e c$ild understands t$e difference between true and false4 and will tell t$e trut$. /.-*,C-.F P<our Honor4 Urespond to asserted specific lac5V.Q '%c. of person%l .no-ledge P,7&.C+E,CF <our Honor4 t$ere is no s$owing of personal 5nowledge by t$e witness.Q E-CG--E,CF A Unon?e>pertV witness may not testify to a matter unless e!idence is introduced sufficient to support a finding t$at t$e witness $as personal 5nowledge of t$e matter. .!idence to pro!e personal 5nowledge may4 but need not4 consist of t$e testimony of t$e witness. Ied. /ules .!id.4 /ule 6)2.

2it$ some Bualifications4 e>perts can testify to facts t$ey used in t$eir process of building an opinion4 e!en if t$ey do not $a!e personal 5nowledge of t$e facts supporting t$e opinion. -ee Ied. /ules .!id.4 /ule ")3. /.-*,C-.F U.stablis$ by preliminary Buestions t$at t$e person $as actual personal 5nowledge.V 'e%ding P,7&.C+E,CF <our Honor4 counsel is leading and coac$ing t$e witness.Q E-CG--E,CF P1eadingQ is t$e legal ritual word for t$e benefit of t$e 0udge and appellate court. PCoac$ingQ is t$e word you mig$t want to add to your statement of t$e ob0ection in front of a 0ury4 so t$e 0ury understands w$y you are pre!enting w$at may to t$em appear to be a reasonable Buestion. +$e problem wit$ a leading Buestion is t$at t$e Buestion itself suggests t$e answer t$at t$e e>aminer wants to $a!e. A leading Buestion often4 but not always4 can be answered wit$ a Pyes.Q +o encourage witnesses telling facts in t$eir own way4 leading Buestions are not allowed on direct e>amination w$en an attorney is e>amining $isJ$er own friendly or neutral witness. 2$en an attorney $as called a $ostile witness 8w$ic$ may be someone ot$er t$an t$e ad!erse party9 leading Buestions are allowed in direct e>amination. 1eading Buestions are always proper in cross? e>aminations. Iederal /. .!id.4 /ule 6118c9 pro!ides t$at Pleading Buestions s$ould not be used on t$e direct e>amination of a witness e>cept as may be necessary to de!elop t$e testimony of t$e witness.Q 1eading Buestions are most dangerous in!ol!ing matters of dispute4 and t$e danger disappears if t$ere is no contro!ersy. Accordingly4 leading Buestions are proper w$en t$e testimony soug$t is merely preliminary to disputed matter. Lestico v. (uehner! 2#3 C.2. 122 81%3%9. +$e times t$at leading Buestions may be Pnecessary to de!elopQ t$e direct testimony of t$e witness include not only preliminary matters4 but also w$en Buestions are needed to switc$ topics or direct t$e attention of a witness to a specific e!ent4 or leading Buestions are needed for soft con!ersational approac$es if t$e witness is a c$ild or is emotionally disturbed4 or leading Buestions are needed because t$e witnessMs memory needs to be refres$ed. +$e allowance of leading Buestions4 or Buestions w$ic$ assume facts not yet pro!en4 is discretionary wit$ t$e trial 0udge. Gnless t$ere appears an abuse of discretion4 t$e appellant court will not re!erse t$e trial courtMs ruling. /.-*,C-.F P<our Honor4 t$is Buestion is only preliminary to mo!e us Buic5ly to t$e matters in issue.Q ,/4 P<our Honor4 t$e witness is a $ostile witness.Q *isst%tes e)idence K +isFuotes -itness K i+proper c"%r%cteriH%tion of t"e e)idence P,7&.C+E,CF <our Honor4 counsel is misstating t$e e!idence.Q E-CG--E,CF +$e trial court $as in$erent power to administer t$e trial so t$at it is fair. Almost uni!ersally4 to t$e Pmisstating t$e e!idenceQ ob0ection4 t$e court will respond wit$F P+$e 0ury $as $eard t$e e!idence and can determine w$at t$e e!idence was.Q +$en4 t$e court will o!errule t$e ob0ection. +$at reaction of t$e 0udge ta5es t$e 0udge out of $er problem of $a!ing to 0udge accuracy by t$e standard of $er own memory. Et is rare t$at t$e 0udgeMs discretion on t$is ob0ection will be disfa!ored by a re!iewing court. Ef t$e 0udge is %%: not li5ely to rule in your fa!or4 and t$e 0udgeMs ruling will not ma5e any difference on an appeal4 w$y ma5e t$e ob0ection@ +$e !alue of ma5ing t$is ob0ection is to bot$ wa5e up t$e witness to pay attention and not mindlessly answer t$e Buestion4 and also to call t$e attention of t$e 0ury to t$e fact t$at t$e earlier testimony was different t$at counsel states in $er Buestion. /.-*,C-.F P<our Honor4 it is not a misstatement4 and certainly t$e court and 0ury $a!e $eard t$e e!idence.Q N%rr%ti)e P,7&.C+E,CF <our Honor4 t$e Buestion calls for a long narrati!e. Et can produce irrele!ant or

ot$erwise inadmissible testimony before t$e court can recei!e an ob0ection and rule on it.Q E-CG--E,CF En t$e e!idence presentation mode used in t$is country4 t$e normal form 8of Buestioning followed by direct answers to t$e Buestions9 is designed to allow t$e ad!erse counsel t$e opportunity to interpose an ob0ection before t$e witness directly answers t$e Buestion in t$e $earing of t$e 0ury. +$us4 an improper item ne!er is $eard by t$e 0ury4 because t$ere is a ruling before t$e witness spea5s. 2$en t$e witness is as5ed to gi!e a long narrati!e answer4 an improper item can be con!eyed to t$e 0ury before t$ere is an opportunity to ob0ect or t$e court to rule. +imely ob0ections to !olunteered inadmissable testimony contained wit$in w$at ot$erwise is proper description of e!ents are needed if t$e e>clusionary system of e!idence is to be preser!ed. After inadmissable testimony is $eard4 t$e problem is trying to effecti!ely cause t$e 0ury to Punring t$e bell.Q +$e courtMs instruction to ignore w$at t$ey 0ust $eard is psyc$ologically ineffecti!e. +actically4 ob0ecting to a long narrati!e by an e>pert witness also $as t$e ad!antage of pre!enting an e>pert witness or ot$er !erbally gifted witness from capti!ating t$e attention of t$e audience wit$ w$at could be a Buarter?$our unbro5en polis$ed s$ow. /.-*,C-.F P<our Honor4 t$e narrati!e simply is going to preliminary matters w$ic$ E t$oug$t we all would li5e to $ear before we get to ot$er Buestions.Q ,/4 P<our Honor4 t$is simply as5s for a s$ort description of t$e scene as a unified w$ole4 before we get to detailed aspects.Q ,/4 P<our Honor4 t$is simply as5s for a s$ort description of t$e science and tec$nical maters in!ol!ed.Q Opinion Drules >C1 %nd >C4E P,7&.C+E,CF <our Honor4 t$e Buestion calls for an opinion 8conclusion94 and t$e witness is not Bualified to gi!e t$e opinion.Q E-CG--E,CF En regard to a lay person 8non?e>pert94 t$is ob0ection is made to t$e competence of a lay person gi!ing an opinion4 and a foundation to turn t$e witness into an e>pert is not possible. En regard to an e>pert4 t$is ob0ection is made to t$e competence of t$e e>pert because of inability of t$e e>pert to pass t$e gate5eeping reBuirements for e>perts. '%#personLs opinion Con?e>pert witnesses are to gi!e facts. Henerally4 it is t$e pro!ince of t$e 0udge or 0ury to ma5e t$e conclusions to be drawn from t$ose facts. Ied /ules .!id.4 /ule ")1F OPINION TESTI*ON: B: 'A: !ITNESSES Ef t$e witness is not testifying as an e>pert4 t$e witnessM testimony in t$e form of opinions or inferences is limited to t$ose opinions or inferences w$ic$ are 8a9 rationally based on t$e perception of t$e witness and 8b9 $elpful to a clear understanding of t$e witnessMs testimony or t$e determination of a fact in issue4 and 8c9 not based on scientific4 tec$nical or ot$er specialiAed 5nowledge wit$in t$e scope of /ule ")2. -ome matters are wit$in t$e normal range of 5nowledge or understanding of t$e ordinary layperson4 but can best be reported by t$e layperson in terms of an opinion. PConseBuently4 a lay witness may testify t$at a person was Xdrun5M or t$at a car was tra!eling Xfast.MQ %omment4 /ule ")14 )enn. &. vidence. Cone>pert witnesses $a!e been allowed to gi!e answers in t$e form of opinions as to suc$ t$ings as p$ysical condition and appearance of $ealt$. See! *offer v. Burd4 4% C22d 2#2 8C 1%519K $ichols v. (luver4 23" C2 64) 8C 1%319 8wife re $usbandMs in0ury9. Yuestions of p$ysical condition are sometimes mingled wit$ Buestions of medical or legal opinion so as to cause a court to 5eep t$e opinion out of e!idence. See! *uus v. &ingo4 3% C22d 5)5 8C 1%4%9 8w$et$er plaintiff can do wor5 $e did before accident9. Ef you $a!e a problem looming4 c$ec5 t$e A1/ annotations for material on admissibility of lay opinions. See! 56 A.1./.3d 5"54 admissibility of none+"ert o"inion testimony as to ,eather conditionsK 66 A.1./.2d 1)4#4 admissibility of o"inion evidence as to "oint of im"act or collision in motor vehicle accident caseK 3" A.1./.2d %6"4 admissibility of o"inion of none+"ert o,ner as to value of chattel. Emportant in many cases is t$e common $olding t$at owners of property are entitled to gi!e an opinion to t$e !alue of t$eir own property e!en t$oug$ t$ey are not e>perts in !aluation. ,wners4 due to t$at owners$ip4 are presumed to $a!e special 5nowledge of t$e !alue of t$eir own property.Q See! )okles and Son! -nc. v. #id,estern -ndemnity %om"any! 65 ,$io -t 3d 621 81%%29K and vans

v. vans 82. (a. 1%%"9 8Pwe find t$at under /ule ")1 U1%%4V of t$e 2est (irginia /ules of .!idence4 t$e owner of destroyed or damaged personal property is Bualified to gi!e lay testimony as to t$e !alue of t$e personal property based on $is or $er personal 5nowledgeQ9. Most courts $a!e permitted t$e owner of a business to testify to t$e !alue or pro0ected profits of t$e business4 wit$out t$e necessity of Bualifying t$e witness as an accountant4 appraiser4 or similar e>pert. See! Lightning Lube! -nc. v. Witco %or".4 4 I.3d 1153 83d Cir. 1%%39 8no abuse of discretion in permitting t$e plaintiffMs owner to gi!e lay opinion testimony as to damages4 as it was based on $is 5nowledge and participation in t$e day?to?day affairs of t$e business9. 7ut see cases li5e .im/s *ot Shot Serv. v. %ontinental W. -ns. %o.! 353 C.2.2d 2"% 8C. . 1%#49 $olding t$at alt$oug$ t$e owner can testify4 t$e opinion may be legally insufficient to support a !erdict if t$e !alue opinion is wit$out any !alid basis. +$e 8c9 part of t$e federal rule ")1 8Pand 8c9 not based on scientific4 tec$nical4 or ot$er specialiAed 5nowledge wit$in t$e scope of /ule ")2Q9 was added w$en t$e federal courts c$anged t$eir rule ")2. +$e reason for t$e ")1 amendment was to pre!ent e!asion of /ule ")2 reBuirements by offering t$e opinions of e>perts as Play opinionsQ rationally based on perception. Cf.4 United States v. 'ulcio4 Co. )4?13#3# 811t$ Cir. Mar. #4 2))69. 8*rosecution offered lay opinion testimony from drug agents re modus operandi of narcotics dealers. 7ecause t$is testimony was founded on specialiAed 5nowledge4 it s$ould $a!e been offered as e>pert testimony4 not lay opinion.9 +$e distinction in t$e federal courts regarding admissibility of opinions used to be between lay ,itnesses and e>pert ,itnesses. 2it$ t$e 2))) amendments to rules ")1 and ")24 t$e sc$olarly legal distinction is now between lay o"inions and e>pert o"inions. Howe!er4 trial court analysis still tends to be in terms of lay !ersus e>pert witnesses. +$erefore4 in any trial courtroom4 you probably will still be best ser!ed if you argue to t$e 0udge in terms of t$e witness classification of lay !ersus e>pert. Certainly in t$ose states w$o did not adopt amendments similar to t$e federal rules4 t$e sc$olarly legal distinction regarding admissibility of opinions is still in terms of lay !ersus e>pert ,itnesses4 not lay !ersus e>pert o"inion. Silencing '%-#ers 1awyers cannot 6testify6. +$ey do it anyway. 7ecause people allow it; +$e rules forbid it. <ou can stop it. <ou must stop it4 if you want to win; +$is tactics can only touc$ on t$is !ery important point of lawsuit warfare. you can stop t$e lawyer on t$e ot$er side from c$eating; That's right! It's cheating for lawyers to testify. Why? They lack "legal competence" to act as witnesses! 1awyers lac5 personal4 first?$and 5nowledge of t$e facts of t$eir client3s cases. En legal terms4 we say t$ey lac5 t$e reBuisite 6competence6 to testify. +$e only people w$o can testify to facts are people w$o $a!e 6personal4 first?$and 5nowledge6 of t$e facts. Y ! "!#T #T $ %&WY'(# )( " T'#TI)YI*+! +$ey will snea5 it in w$ene!er t$ey can. +$ey will do all t$ey can to get into t$e record facts for w$ic$ t$ey $a!e no witnesses4 documents4 or t$ings to pro!e t$ose facts. Cot only t$at4 but t$ey will 6testify to facts6 for w$ic$ t$ey $a!e witnesses 0ust to emp$asiAe t$e facts4 and t$is too is against t$e rules. +$e rules forbid lawyer testimony; 1awyers will snea5ily tal5 about facts t$at t$ey $a!e no witness to tal5 about4 no documents or ot$er t$ings to use to pro!e t$e facts t$ey tal5 about. +$ey will 6tell6 t$e court t$e facts t$ey cannot pro!e ... against t$e rules; Et is c$eating of t$e $ig$est order; 7ut4 t$ey will do it ... if you allow it; Et is against t$e rules ... rules t$at are your friend; Ef you allow it4 you wea5en your case. Ef you allow enoug$ of it4 you will lose; Ce>t time t$e lawyer on t$e ot$er side starts leading $is own witness or telling t$e court w$at t$e facts are4 you 0ump to your feet and say4 " b,ection- your .onor. /ounsel is testifying. /ounsel lacks personal first0hand knowledge of the facts to which he 1or she2 is testifying. "o3e to strike." Ef t$e 0udge allows t$e c$eating to continue4 ob0ect again; Many lawyers are afraid of t$e 0udges4 so

if you $ire a lawyer and pay t$e lawyer good money4 don3t be surprised w$en your lawyer 8w$o is ta5ing your good money9 fails to ob0ect w$en $is friend t$e lawyer on t$e ot$er side begins to testify; Ef you $a!e a lawyer4 insist t$at your lawyer ob0ects to any introduction of facts by lawyers on t$e ot$er side; *eople pay lawyers to fig$t for t$em4 but many lawyers refuse to fig$t t$e 0udge; 7ut4 fig$ting 0udges is part of w$at it ta5es to win; And4 ob0ecting forcibly is part of t$e tactic of winners; Ef you don3t $a!e a lawyer4 <,G MG-+ ,7&.C+; E6pertLs opinion +$e federal courts and some states $a!e a /ule ")2 t$at reads li5e t$isF Iederal /ules .!id.4 /ule ")2. +.-+EM,C< 7< .N*./+-. Ef scientific4 tec$nical4 or ot$er specialiAed 5nowledge will assist t$e trier of fact to understand t$e e!idence or to determine a fact in issue4 a witness Bualified as an e>pert by 5nowledge4 s5ill4 e>perience4 training4 or education4 may testify t$ereto in t$e form of an opinion or ot$erwise if 819 t$e testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data4 829 t$e testimony is t$e product of reliable principles and met$ods4 and 839 t$e witness $as applied t$e principles and met$ods reliably to t$e facts of t$e case. -ome states $a!e t$e pre?2))) !ersion4 w$ic$ reads li5e t$isF Cort$ a5ota /ules .!id. /G1. ")2. +.-+EM,C< 7< .N*./+-. Ef scientific4 tec$nical4 or ot$er specialiAed 5nowledge will assist t$e trier of fact to understand t$e e!idence or to determine a fact in issue4 a witness Bualified as an e>pert by 5nowledge4 s5ill4 e>perience4 training4 or education4 may testify t$ereto in t$e form of an opinion or ot$erwise. +$e difference between t$e two categories of rules reflects t$e different met$ods of approac$ to admissibility to e>pert opinionsF eit$er t$e pre?2))) P0ryeQ standards4 still used in many states4 or t$e post?2))) P'aubert1(umho tests4Q used in t$e federal courts and many states. 7asically4 in t$e federal courts and t$ose following a li5e standard4 t$e court acts aggressi!ely as a gate5eeper4 ma5ing an initial decision as to w$et$er t$e e>pertMs opinion is Pgood enoug$Q to be considered by t$e 0ury. +$e courts following t$e pre?2))) !ersion act only to determine if t$e witness $as e>pert 5nowledge 8not at t$e opinion9 and t$en allow t$e 0ury to ma5e t$e decision w$et$er t$e opinion is Pgood enoug$Q to be reliable. Ior a 2)?page4 general analysis of $ow to get e>pert witness opinions in or out see ,,,.bucklin.org1'aub2)of%.htm. Ior a specific state?by?state analysis of e>pert testimony opinion admissibility and ob0ections t$ereto4 E $eartedly recommend *eter CordbergMs e>cellent site at ,,,.daubertonthe,eb.com! w$ic$ contains current information and incisi!e analysis. /.-*,C-. to ob0ection regarding laypersonF P<our Honor4 t$is is a matter w$ic$ is wit$in t$e normal range of 5nowledge or understanding of an ordinary layperson4 and can best be discussed in terms of an opinion wit$in /ule ")1.Q /.-*,C-. to ob0ection regarding e>pertF P<our Honor4 t$e witness is an e>pert and entitled to draw a conclusion.Q *re?trial ruling specifically barred as5ing t$e Buestion in open court. P,7&.C+E,CF <our Honor4 t$e CourtMs pre?trial rulings $a!e stated t$at t$is line of testimony is improper and s$ould only be discussed in a furt$er conference wit$ t$e court in c$ambers.Q E-CG--E,CF +odayMs pretrial motions practice trial $a!e made pre?trial e!idence rulings $a!e conseBuences of ma0or proportion. Et important t$at you understand completely t$e t$eory and practice of at?trial ob0ections regarding e!idence w$ic$ was t$e sub0ect of a pre?trial admissibility order. +$e law is confusing4 but from t$e perspecti!e of Pbeen?t$ere4 done?t$at4Q after some discussion4 weMll gi!e you t$ree rules of t$umb to follow. En t$e pre?trial motion rulings4 t$e court may $a!e made determinations of w$at e!idence can4 or cannot4 be admitted. Always in some 0urisdictions and sometimes in e!ery 0urisdiction4 t$ese pre? trial rulings are not final. ,ften it is reBuired t$at at t$e trial itself t$e Buestion $as to be as5ed4 or t$e e>$ibit offered4 again by t$e counsel4 e!en if t$e pre?trial ruling was against $imJ$er. Et is only t$e ruling at trial t$at is a final ruling. 2e cannot state t$is too strongly. .rror is not always

preser!ed by t$e granting or denying of a motion in limine. See! *artford 3cc. 4 -ndem. %o. v. #c%ardell4 36% -.2.2d 331 8+e>. 1%639. Many states insist t$at in e!ery situation4 it is t$e courtMs subseBuent e>clusion or admission of rele!ant e!idence O at t$e trial4 not t$e pretrial ruling on a motion for admission or e>clusion O t$at is t$e final ruling. See! Schut5 v. Southern Union Gas %o.4 61" -.2.2d 2%%4 3)3 8+e>. Ci!. App.O+yler 1%#14 no writ9. Cot only is t$e ruling at trial t$e only final ruling4 but if you $a!e recei!ed an ad!erse pre?trial ruling on admissibility4 if you fail to as5 t$e Buestion4 or offer t$e e>$ibit w$en you are in t$e trial4 you may be deemed to $a!e wai!ed your offer of e!idence; +$e t$eory of t$is two?stage process 8pre?trial ruling is preliminary4 final ruling is made only during t$e trial itself9 is t$at t$e trial court s$ould $a!e a c$ance during t$e actual trial to determine if at t$at point t$e trial court wants to c$ange its ruling. +$e law of t$e sundry states and federal circuits is Buite !aried on t$e Buestion of w$et$er a losing party on an pre?trial e!identiary ruling must renew an ob0ection or offer of proof w$en t$e e!idence is or would be offered at trial4 in order to preser!e a claim of error on appeal. -ome courts $a!e $eld t$at a renewal at t$e time t$e e!idence is to be offered at trial is always reBuired. See! %ollins v. Wayne %or".4 621 I.2d """ 85t$ Cir. 1%#)9. En contrast4 ot$er courts $a!e $eld t$at renewal of t$e offer of proof or of t$e ob0ection is not reBuired if 819 t$e issue decided is of a type w$ic$ may be decided as a final matter before t$e e!idence is actually offered4 and 829 t$e trial 0udge stated $er ruling was final and presentation of t$e e!idence or ob0ection to it does not $a!e to be presented at t$e trial for a final ruling. See! &osenfeld v. Bas6uiat! "# I.3d #4 82d Cir. 1%%69. +$e problem wit$ t$at latter formulation for t$e trial lawyer4 of course4 is guessing w$at t$e appeals court will decide is Pa type w$ic$ may be decided...4Q and w$at t$e trial court Pintended to rule....Q 2$at is a trial lawyer to do to act in a Pfail?safeQ mode during trial@ ,ur answer is simplify your life and follow t$ree rules of t$umb in all cases4 in all courts. 1. Ef you lost on your pre?trial attempt to $a!e t$e e!idence admitted Z at trial always offer t$e e!idence again. At t$e Cotes of t$e Iederal Ad!isory Committee to Ied. /ules .!id.4 /ule 1)34 t$ere is an e>tended discussion on w$et$er you must offer t$e e!idence again. <ou may not $a!e to offer it again. 7ut t$e safe way to be sure you $a!e preser!ed t$e point on appeal is to offer it again at t$e trial. !ARNING Ef t$ere is a court order of t$e sort discussed below 8following t$e +E*94 act in compliance wit$ t$e order O obey O follow t$e order and approac$ t$e benc$ first4 at t$at point in t$e trial. 2. Ef you won on your pre?trial attempt to $a!e t$e e!idence e>cluded and t$ere was not a court order of t$e sort discussed below 8following t$e +E*94 you again must ob0ect on all t$e grounds you used in winning at pre? trial 8See! e.g.4 lac5 of foundation4 /ule 4)3 balancing4 et cetera9. As5 to approac$ t$e benc$ to re!isit t$e matter if t$e court does not want to immediately grant your ob0ection. 3. Ef you won on your pre?trial attempt to $a!e t$e e!idence e>cluded and t$ere ,as a court order of t$e sort discussed below 8following t$e +E*94 ob0ect on t$e ground t$at t$e CourtMs pre?trial rulings $a!e stated t$at t$is line of testimony or e>$ibit is improper. As5 to approac$ t$e benc$. Ma5e t$e same ob0ections t$at you made in pre?trial to t$e e!idence. +$en ob0ect to ad!erse counsel !iolating t$e courtMs order. +$en sit bac5 and en0oy t$e courtMs attac5 on ad!erse counsel for ignoring t$e courtMs pre? trial order. TIP( En pre?trial rulings4 if you win4 get t$e pro!ision below inserted in t$e courtMs order. +$e best pre?trial rulings by a trial 0udge add a pro!ision t$at t$e Buestion s$ould not be as5ed4 or e>$ibit offered4 wit$out first approac$ing t$e benc$ for t$e courtMs order at t$at point. +$is preser!es t$e !irginity of t$e 0ury from e>posure to t$e potentially inadmissable e!idence4 but still allows t$e reBuired offer of e!idence at t$at point in t$e trial. At t$e sidebar4 or in c$ambers4 you must renew all of your arguments or ob0ections t$at you made pre?trialK t$e 0udge will ma5e a final4 in?trial4 ruling on t$e record4 outside t$e $earing of t$e 0ury. +$en you go bac5 to t$e 0ury and continue. At t$at point4 bac5 before t$e 0ury4 if t$e 0udge re!erses $imself and allows t$e e!idence4 you do not $a!e to ob0ect again 8assuming t$at during sidebar or c$ambers conference before you returned to t$e 0ury4 you renewed your ob0ection and were definitely o!erruled9.

-ection 1".2 contains a form of order4 for plaintiffs4 for you to reBuest t$e court to sign 8W1".3 for defendants is similar9. Et saysF ,/ ./. +$e foregoing Motion in 1imine by *laintiff $as been presented to me. Gpon all files and proceedings $erein4 t$e separate paragrap$s of t$e Motion are $ereby granted4 or denied as E $a!e indicated immediately below eac$ of t$e paragrap$s in t$e Motion. +$e attorney8s9 for t$e efendant8s9 is instructedF a. Cot to interrogate witnesses concerning t$e pro$ibited items4 or to mention to t$e 0ury in any manner t$ose items4 wit$out efendantMs attorney first obtaining permission outside t$e presence and $earing of t$e 0uryK and b. +o personally admonis$ t$e efendant and efendantMs witnesses to refrain from mentioning to t$e 0ury in any manner t$e pro$ibited items4 wit$out efendantMs attorney first obtaining permission outside t$e presence and $earing of t$e 0ury. -ome 0udges add t$at type of paragrap$ to t$eir orders automatically4 but most do not. Ior your ma>imum benefit4 as t$e pre!ailing party in a pre?trial motion 5eeping e!idence out4 $and t$e 0udge a form paragrap$ to include in t$e courtMs pre?trial order. Ef t$e trial court has ordered in its pre?trial rulings t$at t$e matter s$ould not be inBuired about in front of t$e 0ury wit$out again coming to t$e court at t$at point in t$e trial4 t$e court may ta5e !ery stringent measures indeed. Hi!en suc$ an order4 t$e ot$er side may be in contempt of t$e courtMs order and suffer punis$ment for misbe$a!ior. .!en if t$ere was no contempt4 and t$e mentioning was inad!ertent4 t$e court can order !arious punis$ments to correct t$e pre0udice caused by t$e order?!iolation4 up to and including ordering a mistrial4 or waiting until t$e case $as ended and t$en granting a new trial. See! 7rvis v. %alkins -ndianto,n %itrus %o.4 84t$ ist Appeals4 I14 2))39 8inad!ertent mention sufficient for new trial order9. Ef you are in court wit$ t$is Buic5?reference c$ec5list in your trial noteboo54 and you Buic5ly need to argue for or against t$e court granting 8a9 a curati!e 0ury instruction4 8b9 a directed 0udgement on some issue in!ol!ed4 8C9 an immediate mistrial4 or 8d9 a mistrial or new trial to be granted if t$e offending party wins a !erdict O follow t$e four point format for argument suggested by t$e following case. U1V ...consider w$et$er t$e e!idence e>cluded by t$e courtMs order was deliberately introduced or solicited by t$e party4 or w$et$er t$e !iolation of t$e courtMs order was inad!ertent.... U2V also consider t$e inflammatory nature of t$e !iolation suc$ t$at a substantial rig$t of t$e party see5ing to set aside t$e 0uryMs !erdict was pre0udiced.... U3V Ualso considerV t$e li5eli$ood t$at t$e !iolation created 0ury confusion4 wasted t$e 0uryMs time on collateral issues4 or ot$erwise wasted scarce 0udicial resources.... U4V also consider w$et$er t$e !iolation could $a!e been cured by a 0ury instruction to disregard t$e c$allenged e!idence. *onaker v. #ahon4 21) 2. (a. 534 552 -...2d "## 82))19. /.-*,C-.F UAssuming courtMs order did "rohibit you as5ing t$e offending Buestion during t$e trial wit$out counsel first approac$ing t$e benc$ for permissionVF P<our Honor4 E do not belie!e t$is falls wit$in t$e matters already ruled upon. May we approac$ t$e benc$ to discuss t$at@Q Pri)ilege P,7&.C+E,CF <our Honor4 t$e Buestion calls for pri!ileged matters 8stating t$e nature of t$e pri!ilege9.Q E-CG--E,CF A pri!ilege is a rig$t of an indi!idual not to testify. En federal court4 in ci!il actions4 a pri!ilege is determined in accordance wit$ state law. 8+$ere are t$ree main e>ceptions to t$at statement regarding priority of state lawF 819 t$e Iederal Constitutional Iift$ Amendment pri!ilege against self?incrimination4 829 t$e pri!ilege for federal grand 0ury proceedings and 839 t$e wor5 product rule protecting attorneysM mental impressions.9 +$ere are a !ariety of pri!ileges in t$e state laws across t$e country4 and t$ey are $andled in a !ariety of ways. Ior e>ample4 in California4 t$e law protecting newspersons pro!ides only an immunity from being ad0udged in contemptK it does not pre!ent t$e use of ot$er sanctions for

refusal of a newsman to respond to disco!ery w$en $e is a party to a ci!il proceeding. (S'7 v. Su"erior %ourt of &iverside %ounty4 136 Cal.App.3d 3"5 84t$ ist. 1%#29. /ecogniAing t$e impossibility of discussing suc$ !aried pri!ileges in a Buic5 reference to ob0ections4 we will simply gi!e you a laundry list of t$e common pri!ilegesF +$e Iift$ Amendment to t$e Gnited -tates Constitution. Pillsbury %o. v. %onboy! 45% G.-. 24# 81%#39 8t$e pri!ilege is a!ailable in ci!il proceedings9K Ba+ter v. Palmigiano! 425 G3)# 81%"69 8Pt$e Iift$ Amendment does not forbid ad!erse inferences against parties to ci!il actions w$en t$ey refuse to testify in response to probati!e e!idence offered against t$emQ9. +$e pri!ilege does not e>tend to records reBuired by statute to be 5ept. United States v. 'oe4 465 G- 6)5 81%#49. Accountant O Client. Attorney O Client. Attorney 2or5 *roduct. Iederal law distinguis$es between opinion 8core9 and ordinary wor5 product of attorneys. Core wor5 product consists of mental impressions and conclusions and is gi!en absolute protection. ,rdinary wor5 product consists of primary information4 suc$ as a witnessMs recorded statement or ob0ecti!e data collected by t$e attorneyK it is gi!en only limited protection and may be obtained upon a s$owing of substantial need and undue $ards$ip. Ied. /ules Ci!. *.4 /ule 26 8b9839K &obinson v. )e+as 3uto 'ealers 3ssn.4 214 I/ 4324 at 444 8.. . +e>4 2))39. Clergy. Husband O 2ife. &oint efense or Common 1egal Enterest. &ury 8Hrand and *etit9 *roceedings. Mediation iscussions and ,ffers of -ettlement. +$e protection granted by Ied. /ules .!id.4 /ule 4)# is not a pri!ilege grant. Et is a public policy protection. 7ut some states $a!e special statutes granting a pri!ilege not to testify. Mental Healt$ /ecords. *$ysician O *atient. *syc$ot$erapist O *atient. +rade -ecret. /.-*,C-.F P<our Honor4 t$e matter is not pri!ileged because....Q Pu/lic polic# P,7&.C+E,CF <our Honor4 t$e Uspecify t$e statute4 rule or common law doctrineV says it cannot be admitted into e!idence. Et is incompetent e!idence.Q E-CG--E,CF +$e ob0ection regarding public policy does not consist of a optional rig$t of an indi!idual not to testify. +$e ob0ection based on public policy refers to a non? optional class of e!idence t$at cannot be introduced4 no matter t$at t$e person w$o $olds t$e e!idence wants to testify. +$e term PincompetentQ is use as a generaliAed reference to e!idence w$ic$ cannot be introduced because it !iolates !arious rules against being allowed. Ef you are in front of 0udge only4 using t$e term PincompetentQ does not add anyt$ing to your specific ob0ection 8and by itself an ob0ection of PincompetentQ is so general as to be regarded by t$e courts as meaningless and not a !alid ob0ection9. 7ut if you are in t$e $earing of a 0ury4 adding t$e term PincompetentQ may soften somew$at t$eir idea t$at you and a lawyerMs law are bloc5ing good e!idence t$ey want to $ear or see. +$e !ariety of sub0ects forbidden by state and federal law is wide. +$e only unity of concept is Ppublic policy forbids.Q +o gi!e you some idea of t$e !ariety of statutory sub0ects you s$ould

consider4 $ere is a small listing of sub0ects of freBuent pro$ibition4 based on public policyF ead ManMs -tatute. +$e dead manMs statutes are state laws wit$ so many e>ceptions4 twists and turns t$ey are a minor fa!orite of bar e>aminers. +$e public policy is to protect estates from false claims. Most dead man statutes pro!ide t$at a party to t$e litigation w$o $as an interest ad!erse to t$e estate is not a competent witness as to matters against t$e estate. +$e claim must be supported instead by written documents or disinterested testimony.

Medical .>pense *ayments. .!idence of t$e payment of medical e>penses to s$ow liability for negligence leading to t$e medical e>penses are inadmissable. Ied. /ules .!id.4 /ule 4)%. Medical /e!iew /ecords. Most states forbid disco!erability or admissibility of t$e records of a medical re!iew committee of a $ospital. Et is a legislati!e policy decision to promote t$e ability of a $ospital to disco!er medical malpractice abo!e t$at of t$e in0ured person to disco!er t$e malpractice. Motor (e$icle Accident /ecords. Most states $a!e statutes regarding some aspect of motor !e$icle accident e!idence4 about w$ic$ some energetic legislators felt strongly. ..g.4 t$at police accident reports are or are not admissible in e!idenceK t$at lac5 of seat belt use cannot be introduced into e!idenceK t$at police blood alco$ol tests are not admissible unless strict conditions are met. *arole .!idence /ule. +$e Pparole e!idence ruleQ $as long been a rule of law in t$e .nglis$ spea5ing world. En t$e absence of fraud or mutual mista5e4 oral statements are not admissible to modify4 !ary4 or contradict t$e plain terms of a !alid written contract between two parties. Et $as been enacted in statutory form in some states4 but is a!ailable in all states under common law. +$e public policy is to promote commercial certainty if t$e contract is clear. Ef terms of t$e contract are ambiguous or clearly susceptible to more t$an one meaning4 t$en parole e!idence is admissible to s$ow w$at t$e parties meant at t$e time of ma5ing t$e contract and $ow t$ey intended it to apply. 8P*aroleQ means oral e!idence.9 -ettlement iscussions. .!idence of mediation or settlement discussions is not admissible to pro!e liability for t$e claims t$at were being discussed. Ied. /ules .!id.4 /ule 4)#. -ubseBuent /emedial Measures. .!idence of subseBuent remedial measures is not admissible to s$ow pre!ious negligence or culpable conduct. Ied. /ules .!id.4 /ule 4)". 2it$drawn Huilty *lea. .!idence of a guilty plea t$at is later wit$drawn4 or any statements made in connection wit$ it. Ied. /ules .!id.4 /ule 41). 2itness is Attorney. .t$ical rules pro$ibit a lawyer from ser!ing simultaneously as a witness and an ad!ocate. Henerally4 a partyMs lawyer w$o attempts to testify is sub0ect to $a!ing to c$oose between being a witness or continuing as a lawyer in a case. +$e PwitnessJad!ocate ruleQ is sub0ect to misuse4 especially if an ad!erse party can subpoena t$e ot$er sideMs lawyer to be a witness and t$en file a motion to disBualify $er from representing $er opponent because of t$e witnessJad!ocate rule. +$is would depri!e a person of t$eir c$osen attorney. Accordingly4 most state et$ics codes and courts are more strict on applying t$e rule w$en a lawyer $erself decides on being a witness rat$er t$an it being t$e ad!erse party w$o see5s t$e testimony. /.-*,C-.F U epends on t$e statute or rule in!ol!ed.V Rule 9C7 P,7&.C+E,CF <our Honor4 t$is calls for e!idence t$at is e>cluded under /ule 4)3. May we approac$ t$e benc$ to discuss t$is furt$er@Q E-CG--E,CF Any time you want to rely on /ule 4)3 in front of a 0ury4 do it by rule number. Consider t$e alternati!e of saying t$is in front of t$e 0uryF P,b0ection4 <our Honor4 t$is e!idence is so powerful and pre0udicial t$at if t$e 0ury $ears it t$ey will decide against my client.Q +$at alternati!e way is a guarantee t$atF 8a9 if t$e 0udge o!errules your ob0ection4 t$e 0ury will agree wit$ your own assessment of $ow important it isK 8b9 if t$e 0udge sustains your ob0ection4 t$e 0ury will

5now t$ere is really bad e!idence out t$ere against your client 0ustifying any punis$ment t$ey can gi!e your client; -o4 ob0ect using t$e /ule 4)3 number4 and as5 to tal5 to t$e 0udge out of t$e $earing of t$e 0ury. /ule 4)2 states t$e fundamental principle of American e!idence law4 to witF All rele!ant e!idence is admissible4 e>cept as ot$erwise pro!ided by Ut$e Constitution4 statutes4 and ot$er court rulesV. .!idence w$ic$ is not rele!ant is not admissible. +$at principle4 di!iding e!idence into t$e two classes 8rele!ant is admissible and not? rele!ant is not?admissible9 is Pa presupposition in!ol!ed in t$e !ery conception of a rational system of e!idence.Q +$ayer4 Preliminary )reatise on vidence 264 81#%#9. Et constitutes t$e foundation upon w$ic$ t$e structure of admission and e>clusion rests. Henerally4 s5illful attorneys can ma5e almost anyt$ing rele!ant. P/ele!antQ simply means an item tends to pro!e or dispro!e some fact or issue. Williams lec. %o-o" v. #ontana-'akota Utility %o.4 "% C22d 5)# 8C 1%569K Ied. /ules .!id.4 /ule 4)1. +$e Buestion under /ule 4)3 is w$et$er e!idence in t$e class of Prele!ant e!idenceQ is material enoug$ 8ma5es enoug$ difference9 to be admitted w$en balanced against 8a9 unfair pre0udice to a party or 8b9 time waste. +$e case law recogniAes t$at certain circumstances call for t$e e>clusion of e!idence w$ic$ is of unBuestioned rele!ance. +$ese circumstances range all t$e way from inducing decision on a purely emotional basis4 to not$ing more $armful t$an wasting time. /ule 4)3 calls for balancing t$e probati!e !alue of and need for t$e e!idence against t$e $arm li5ely to result from its admission. 0ed. &ules vid! &ule4 /ule 4)34 pro!ides 8as do state rules and t$e common law9 t$atF Alt$oug$ rele!ant4 e!idence may be e>cluded if its probati!e !alue is substantially outweig$ed by t$e danger of unfair pre0udice4 confusion of t$e issues4 or misleading t$e 0ury4 or by considerations of undue delay4 waste of time4 or needless presentation of cumulati!e e!idence. etermining Pprobati!e !alueQ is at t$e discretion of t$e 0udge. Henerally4 t$e discretion of t$e trial 0udge as to probati!e !alue of t$e e!idence will be up$eld. +$us it $as been $eld t$at it is wit$in t$e discretion of t$e trial 0udge to allow or disallow testimony as to t$e speed of a car some distance from t$e scene of t$e accident. See! )hom"son v. $ettum4 163 C22d %1 8C 1%6#9. En general4 t$e 0udge determines probati!e !alue of e!idence byF How directly related is t$e e!idence to t$e disputes@ How important is t$e e!idence to t$e 0uryMs decision@ How muc$ ot$er e!idence on t$e point $as already been introduced or is a!ailable to be introduced@ How far remo!ed is t$e e!idence in space or time from t$e people4 places4 and e!ents being litigated@ 2ill t$e e!idence introduce inadmissable issues on w$ic$ 0urors may $a!e strong feelings or pre0udices4 suc$ as drugs4 se>4 and illegal immigration. 2ill t$e e!idence carry strong emotions li5ely to o!erw$elm any reason or logic of t$e weig$t of t$e e!idence@ +$e amount of Punfair pre0udicial effectQ also is determined by t$e 0udge. +$e word PunfairQ is t$e 5ey. +$e rule is directed to unfairly pre0udicial e!idence4 not simply pre0udicial e!idence. Endeed4 no !erdict could be obtained wit$out pre0udicial e!idence. United States v. $oland4 %6) I.2d 13#44 13#" 8#t$ Cir. 1%%29. After all4 Pt$e admission of e!idence is generally calculated to benefit one side to t$e pre0udice of t$e ot$er.Q Bell v. %ity of #il,aukee4 "46 I.2d 12)54 12"" 8"t$ Cir. 1%#49. PXGnfair pre0udiceM... means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis4 commonly4 t$oug$ not necessarily4 an emotional one.Q Ad!isory Committee Cote4 /ule 4)34 0ed. &ules vid. *re0udice is unfair if it is t$e result of somet$ing ot$er t$an t$e rele!ance of t$e e!idence. See! State v. (ringstad4 353 C.2.2d 3)24 31) 8C. . 1%#49. -tated ot$erwise4 Pany

pre0udice due to t$e probati!e force of e!idence is not unfair pre0udice.Q State v. 8immerman4 524 C.2.2d 1114 116 8C. . 1%%49. +$e .!idence /ule 4)34 li5e t$e common law4 5eeps out admissible e!idence only if its probati!e !alue is substantially out,eighed by t$e danger of unfair pre0udice. Et is not a test of mere preponderance of unfairness. Gnfair pre0udice must Psubstantially outweig$Q t$e probati!e force of t$e e!idence. Ef you are t$e proponent of t$e e!idence4 draw to t$e trial courtMs attention t$at if t$e balancing test of /ule 4)3 is being used4 t$e court must resol!e all doubt in fa!or of admission. Ef t$e court says it is Pa close Buestion4Q t$e e!idence s$ould go in. Any doubts about admissibility of e!idence under /ule 4)34 suc$ as doubts about t$e e>istence of unfair pre0udice4 confusion of issues4 misleading4 undue delay4 or waste of time4 s$ould be resol!ed in fa!or of admitting t$e e!idence4 if necessary gi!ing a contemporaneous warning instruction to t$e 0ury or an admonition in t$e c$arge. 1 Weinstein/s vidence4 [ 4)3U)1V4 at 4)3?114 4)3?12 81%%49. En determining w$et$er to e>clude e!idence under /ule 4)34 courts s$ould gi!e t$e e!idence its ma>imum reasonable probati!e force and its minimum reasonable pre0udicial !alue. State v. &andall4 2))2 C 164 [ 154 63% C.2.2d 43%. U+V$e e>clusion of rele!ant e!idence under /ule 4)3 is an e>traordinary remedy to be used sparingly. (-B )rucking %o. v. &iss -nt/l %or".4 "63 I.2d 114#4 1155 81)t$ Cir. 1%#59. /ule 4)3 also mentions Pconfusion of issuesQ and Pwaste of timeQ as grounds for e>clusion. PConfusion of issuesQ means t$at too many issues will be in0ected into t$e 0ury room4 causing confusion in reasoning. P2aste of timeQ addresses w$et$er t$e offered e!idence is simply so wea5 and remo!ed from t$e issues being litigated4 or so cumulati!e of ot$er similar e!idence4 t$at is not wort$ t$e time in!ol!ed to consider it. +$at is w$ere t$e ob0ections of Prepetiti!eQ or Pas5ed and answeredQ are resol!ed. Co rule of e!idence or procedure pro$ibits an attorney from as5ing t$e same Buestion o!er and o!er again to secure a different answer or to clarify a point. +$is ob0ection is usually in!alid because t$e Buestion usually is a Buestion by t$e interrogating counsel to pin down an ambiguous or e!asi!e answer. Howe!er w$en it $as merit4 it is /ule 43 t$at is t$e aut$ority for t$e ob0ection. McCormic5Ms !iew was t$at unfair surprise would be4 by itself4 a ground for e>clusion. +$e federal committee instead adopted t$e !iew of most courts and of 2igmore t$at surprise4 by itself4 was not a ground for e>clusion4 so surprise is not listed in /ule 4)3. +$e official comments of t$e Iederal Ad!isory Committee in a mild manner suggest t$at in lieu of e>clusion of e!idenceF Pit $as been stated t$at granting a continuance is t$e proper remedy for unfair surprise.Q See! Gerhardt v. (.! 32" C.2.2d 113 8C. . 1%#29 at note " 8Pt$e proper remedy for unfair surprise is a continuanceQ9. +wo Bualifications s$ould be noted to t$e !iew t$at continuance4 not e>clusion4 s$ould be used if t$e offered e!idence is a surpriseF .>clusion may be t$e only a!ailable remedy if a party deliberately wit$$olds information in response to disco!ery interrogatories or depositions. .>clusion as an enforcement de!ice may be necessary to preser!e t$e system of disco!ery. -ometimes a piece of e!idence may be pre0udicial and t$at pre0udice may be compounded by t$e element of surprise. +$at combination may ma5e t$e piece of merely pre0udicial e!idence e>cludable on t$e ground of Punfair pre0udice.Q +$e courtMs c$oices regarding a /ule 4)3 ruling on admitting e!idence surprising t$e ad!erse party may be categoriAed as being amongF Co e>clusion of t$e e!idence 8for inad!ertent surprise and no pre0udice9K Continuance 8for inad!ertent surprise and pre0udice9K and .>clusion 8for ine>cusable surprise and pre0udice9. +$is manner of analysis is illustrated in (rech v. rdman! 233 C.2.2d 555 at 55" 8MC 1%"59. +$e

court up$eld t$e trial courtMs admission of a neurologistMs testimony4 alt$oug$ disclosure of t$e e>pert witness was not made until t$e day before trial. +rial courts $a!e a duty to suppress suc$ e!idence w$ere counselMs dereliction is ine>cusable and results in disad!antage to $is opponent. En situations w$ere t$e failure to disclose is inad!ertent but $armful4 t$e court s$ould be Buic5 to grant a continuance and assess costs against t$e party w$o $as been at fault. Here4 $owe!er4 defendant did not see5 a continuance upon learning t$at t$e doctor would testify. +$e trial court was 0ustified in finding t$at defendant did not sustain pre0udice w$ic$ was attributable to $is $a!ing $ad only brief notice of t$e doctorMs appearance. /.-*,C-.F P<our Honor4 t$e e>clusion of rele!ant e!idence for unfairness under /ule 4)3 is an e>traordinary remedy. +$ere is not$ing unfair about t$is e!idence.Q Specul%ti)e P,7&.C+E,CF <our Honor4 it calls for t$e witness to guess and speculate.Q E-CG--E,CF Anyt$ing t$at in!ites a witness to guess is ob0ectionable. A guess is not a factK a guess is not an opinion based on t$e appropriate standards for an opinion. -peculation as to w$at possibly could $a!e $appened4 or w$at possibly could $appen4 is of little probati!e !alue. Hreater freedom is allowed wit$ e>pert witnesses4 but still t$e e>pert is limited by /ule ")2 strictures. /.-*,C-.F P<our Honor4 t$is is an e>pert gi!ing an e>pert opinion wit$in t$e scope of $er e>pertise.Q

'eon%rd Buc.lin $as been elected a Iellow of t$e Enternational Academy of +rial 1awyers4 w$ic$ attempts to identify t$e top 5)) trial lawyers in t$e G.-. He ser!ed as a irector of t$e Academy from 1%%) to 1%%6. He is also a member of t$e Million? ollar Ad!ocate3s Iorum4 w$ic$ is limited to plaintiffsM attorneys w$o $a!e won million or multi?million dollar !erdicts4 awards4 and settlements. ,n t$e ot$er side of t$e table4 Mr. 7uc5lin $as been placed in 7est3s irectory of /ecommended Ensurance Attorneys as a result of superior defense wor5 and reasonable fees for o!er 35 insurers. His legal e>perience spans 4) years4 and $as been balanced between commercial and personal wor54 between office practice and litigation4 and between plaintiff and defense wor5. He is t$e aut$or of Building )rial $otebooks! from w$ic$ t$is article is e>cerpted.

1; 'eg%l Rese%rc"
Egnorance of t$e 1aw is C, .NCG-.; o you 5now $ow to find t$e official law t$at will decides w$o wins your case@ o you 5now $ow to find and read appellate case reports@ o you 5now $ow to find and read statutes4 code4 and ordinances@ Ef you went to court before personal computers and t$e internet4 you3d be digging t$roug$ dismally dry and boring stac5s of loo5?ali5e boo5s in a law library 8if you could find one nearby9. 7ac5 t$en4 winning reBuired $undreds of $ours turning dusty pages4 pulling piles of boo5s from t$e stac5s4 spreading t$em on a library table4 and ta5ing notes on a yellow pad in searc$ of support. All t$at $as c$anged. +$an5s to t$e internet and price competition4 online legal researc$ is now wit$in t$e reac$ of most poc5etboo5s. How to find 6case6 law. 1earn $ow to cite t$e law in your pleadings4 motions4 memoranda4 and briefs. Cle!er argument is not enoug$. <ou cannot win wit$out finding and citing official legal aut$orities t$at control 0udges. 7e assured your opponent will cite legal aut$orities fa!oring t$eir case. <ou must do t$e same if you want to win.

1< S%+ple C%ses

E6%+ple A *1AEC+EII states CAG-. ,I AC+E,C is 7reac$ of Contract . Iirst pro!e e>istance of a contract. 7reac$ of contract. amages t$at resulted. defendents 0ob to pro!e *1AEC+EII can3t pro!e t$e elements of t$at CAG-. ,I AC+E,C. Cegligence 4common law duty to apply t$e golden rule. 2e 5now t$at certain results are foreseable4 t$en we create a CAG-. ,I AC+E,C4 because t$ere was a foreseable result4 duty arises 4 duty was breac$ed. +$at3s w$at negligence is. *ro!e liability. E6%+ple B +ortourous interference wit$ an ad!antageous relations$ip. +$e e>istence of an ad!antageous business relations$ip 4 t$e intentional and un0ustified inteference. Dnowledge of t$is relations$ip. <ou need to 5now t$e elements of t$at particular CAG-. ,I AC+E,C. uty 4 7reac$ ' amages ? +wo businesses 4 bot$ $a!e to 5now uty to eac$ ot$er and relations$ip. E6%+ple C 7efore 1%44 <oung men left for war 4 came bac5 and would find out t$at t$eir best friend was wit$ your wife. <ou could sue due to alienation of affections 8aoa9 4 aoa is a tort action broug$t about by deserted spouse against a t$ird party alleged to be resposnsible for failure of marriage. Gsually t$e spouse3s lo!er. 8Also can be used against family members4 couselers and t$erapists or clergy members w$o ad!ised di!orce9 -ince 1%354 t$is +,/+ $as been abolis$ed in 42 states4 including Cew <or5.U1V Alienation is4 $owe!er4 still recogniAed in Hawaii4 Ellinois4 Cort$ Carolina4 Mississippi4 Cew Me>ico4 -out$ a5ota4 and Gta$.. E6%+ple D *erson being sued for credit card debt by -ears. <ou /eBuest -ears to produce for inspection and copy all documents signed by defendents4 persuant to rule 3E want to see t$e originals3. Had 3) days to produce documents. As5ed to e>tend date4 Ce!er e>tend date if you $a!e t$em. Ets t$eir mista5e. <ou tell t$em your filing for -GMMA/< &G H.M.C+ . -o -ears drew up -ummary of dis+iss%l -it"out prejudice. 2$ic$ means s$e can file t$e lawsuit again. -o still go for -GMMA/< &G H.M.C+ . Ne)er %gree to dis+iss%l -it"out prejudice Dis+iss%l -it"out prejudice +e%ns s"e c%n file %g%in. ,C+ AH/.. to dismissal wit$out pre0udice. -till go for -GMMA/< &G H.M.C+ set it for $earing. :OU !ANT DIS*ISSA' !ITH PREBUDICE E6%+ple E E recei!ed a letter from comcast stating 6Comcast will pro!ide your name4 address and ot$er information as directed in t$e ,rder and -ubpoena unless you or your attorney file a protecti!e motion to Buas$ or !acate t$e subpoena in t$e court w$ere t$e subpoena was issued...6 Iorce t$em to file indi!idually against you4 rat$er t$an against a class of infringers. -ee if you can find ot$er cases in w$ic$ t$eir lawsuits $a!e been dismissed based on lac5 of e!idence4 especially wit$ pre0udice. -ee if you can find any 0udges w$o $a!e been critical of t$em in t$eir rulings. &udges seem to be increasingly finding t$at an E* address alone is not sufficiently specific4 but t$at won3t necessarily pre!ent it from going to court. E6%+ple D How do you sue for slander or libel@ Sl%nder is spo.en In print, it0s li/el 2ritten and t$erefore libel. *$one calls would be slander. -tate ma5es a difference. Et is not slanderJlibel if it is true. efamation reBuires false statements t$at $arm t$e reputation of a t$ird party. <ou may be able to get an in0unction against t$e former client pro$ibiting t$em from defaming your company or yourself. Iind out w$at your state options are. 7ecause t$ere3s an imminent t$reat of $arm4 you probably s$ould act Buic5ly. E6%+ple E Can E sue for wrongful termination ? Cot in California

At?will employment is a doctrine of American law t$at defines an employment relations$ip in w$ic$ eit$er party can immediately terminate t$e relations$ip at any time wit$ or wit$out any ad!ance warning4U1V and wit$ no subseBuent liability4 pro!ided t$ere was no e>press contract for a definite term go!erning t$e employment relations$ip and t$at t$e employer does not belong to a collecti!e bargaining group 8i.e.4 $as not recogniAed a union9. Gnder t$is legal doctrineF P any $iring is presumed to be 6at will6K t$at is4 t$e employer is free to disc$arge indi!iduals 6for good cause4 or bad cause4 or no cause at all46 and t$e employee is eBually free to Buit4 stri5e4 or ot$erwise cease wor5.U2V

1> 'EGA' TER*S

TORT l%- is a ci!il wrong. +,/+ law deals wit$ situations w$ere a person3s be$a!ior $as unfairly caused someone else to suffer loss or $arm. A +,/+ is not necessarily an illegal act but it is an act or inaction t$at causes $arm to anot$er. +$e law allows anyone w$o is $armed to reco!er t$eir loss. +o pre!ail 8win9 in a +,/+ law case t$e *1AEC+EII 8person suing9 must s$ow t$at t$e actions or lac5 of action was t$e most li5ely cause of t$e $arm. P'AINTI33 8\ in legal s$ort$and94 also 5nown as a claimant or complainant4 is t$e term used in some 0urisdictions for t$e party w$o initiates a lawsuit 8also 5nown as an action9 before a court. En ot$er words4 someone w$o tries to sue. 7y doing so4 t$e *1AEC+EII see5s a legal remedy4 and if successful4 t$e court will issue 0udgment in fa!or of t$e *1AEC+EII and ma5e t$e appropriate court order 8e.g.4 an order for damages9. SU**AR: BUDGE*ENT is a 0udgment entered by a court for one party and against anot$er party summarily4 i.e.4 wit$out a full trial. -uc$ a 0udgment may be issued on t$e merits of an entire case4 or on discrete issues in t$at case Adjudic%tion is t$e legal process by w$ic$ an arbiter or 0udge re!iews e!idence and argumentation including legal reasoning set fort$ by opposing parties or litigants to come to a decision w$ic$ determines rig$ts and obligations between t$e parties in!ol!ed. +$ree types of disputes are resol!ed t$roug$ ad0udicationF isputes between pri!ate parties4 suc$ as indi!iduals or corporations. isputes between pri!ate parties and public officials. isputes between public officials or public bodies. O+ni/us "e%ring is a pretrial $earing. Et is usually soon after a defendant3s arraignment. +$e main purpose of t$e $earing is to determine t$e admissibility of e!idence4 including testimony and e!idence seiAed at t$e time of arrest. +$e prosecutor and t$e defendant3s counsel attend t$e $earing to discuss pretrial matters pertaining to t$e case. Su/poen% duces tecu+ 8or subpoena for production of e!idence9 is a court summons ordering t$e recipient to appear before t$e court and produce documents or ot$er tangible e!idence for use at a $earing or trial. +$e subpoena duces tecum is similar to t$e subpoena ad testificandum4 w$ic$ is a writ summoning a witness to testify orally. Howe!er4 unli5e t$e latter summons4 t$e subpoena duces tecum instructs t$e witness to bring in $and boo5s4 papers4 or e!idence for t$e court. En most 0urisdictions4 a subpoena usually $as to be ser!ed personally. A court order by w$ic$ an indi!idual is reBuired to perform4 or is restrained from performing4 a particular act. A writ framed according to t$e circumstances of t$e indi!idual case. An injunction commands an act t$at t$e court regards as essential to 0ustice4 or it pro$ibits an act t$at is deemed to be contrary to good conscience. Et is an e>traordinary remedy4 reser!ed for special circumstances in w$ic$ t$e temporary preser!ation of t$e status Buo is necessary. An in0unction is ordinarily and properly elicited from ot$er proceedings. Ior e>ample4 a landlord mig$t bring an action against a tenant for waste4 in w$ic$ t$e rig$t to protect t$e land?lord3s interest in t$e owners$ip of t$e premises is at issue. +$e landlord mig$t apply to t$e court for an in0unction against t$e tenant3s continuing $armful use of t$e property. +$e in0unction is an ancillary remedy in t$e action against t$e tenant. En0uncti!e relief is not a matter of rig$t4 but its denial is wit$in t$e discretion of t$e court. 2$et$er or not an in0unction will be granted !aries wit$ t$e facts of eac$ case. +$e courts e>ercise t$eir power to issue in0unctions 0udiciously4 and only w$en necessity e>ists. An in0unction is usually issued only in cases w$ere irreparable in0ury to t$e rig$ts of an

indi!idual would result ot$erwise. Et must be readily apparent to t$e court t$at some act $as been performed4 or is t$reatened4 t$at will produce irreparable in0ury to t$e party see5ing t$e in0unction. An in0ury is considered irreparable w$en it cannot be adeBuately compensated by an award of damages. +$e pecuniary damage t$at would be incurred from t$e t$reatened action need not be great4 $owe!er. Ef a loss can be calculated in terms of money4 t$ere is no irreparable in0ury. +$e conseBuent refusal by a court to grant an in0unction is4 t$erefore4 proper. 1oss of profits alone is insufficient to establis$ irreparable in0ury. +$e potential destruction of property is sufficient. En0uncti!e relief is not a remedy t$at is liberally granted4 and4 t$erefore4 a court will always consider any $ards$ip t$at t$e parties will sustain by t$e granting or refusal of an in0unction. +$e court t$at issues an in0unction may4 in e>ercise of its discretion4 modify or dissol!e it at a later date if t$e circumstances so warrant. +ypes of En0unction A preli+in%r# or te+por%r# injunction is a pro!isional remedy t$at is in!o5ed to preser!e t$e sub0ect matter in its e>isting condition. Ets purpose is to pre!ent dis?solution of t$e plaintiff3s rig$ts. +$e main reason for use of a preliminary in0unction is t$e need for immediate relief. *reliminary or temporary in0unctions are not conclusi!e as to t$e rig$ts of t$e parties4 and t$ey do not determine t$e merits of a case or decide issues in contro!ersy. +$ey see5 to pre!ent t$reatened wrong4 furt$er in0ury4 and irreparable $arm or in0ustice until suc$ time as t$e rig$ts of t$e parties can be ultimately settled. *reliminary in0uncti!e relief ensures t$e ability of t$e court to render a meaningful decision and ser!es to pre!ent a c$ange of circumstances t$at would $amper or bloc5 t$e granting of proper relief following a trial on t$e merits of t$e case. A motion for a preliminary in0unction is ne!er granted automatically. +$e discretion of t$e court s$ould be e>ercised in fa!or of a temporary in0unction4 w$ic$ maintains t$e status Buo until t$e final trial. -uc$ discretion s$ould be e>ercised against a temporary in0unction w$en its issuance would alter t$e status Buo. Ior e>ample4 during t$e Ilorida presidential?election contro!ersy in 2)))4 t$e campaign of george w. bus$ as5ed a federal appeals court for a preliminary in0unction to $alt t$e manual counting of ballots. Et soug$t a preliminary in0unction until t$e G.-. -upreme Court could decide on granting a permanent in0unction. En t$at case4 -iegel !. 1epore4 234 I.3d 1163 811t$ Cir. 2)))9. t$e G.-. Court of Appeals for t$e .le!ent$ Circuit refused to grant t$e in0unction4 stating t$at t$e 7us$ campaign $ad not 6s$own t$e 5ind of serious and immediate in0ury t$at demands t$e e>traordinary relief of a preliminary in0unction.6 *re!enti!e En0unctions An in0unction directing an indi!idual to refrain from doing an act is pre!enti!e4 pro$ibiti!e4 pro$ibitory4 or negati!e. +$is type of in0unction pre!ents a t$reatened in0ury4 preser!es t$e status Buo4 or restrains t$e continued commission of an ongoing wrong4 but it cannot be used to redress a consummated wrong or to undo t$at w$ic$ $as already been done. +$e Ilorida !ote count in t$e presidential election of 2))) again ser!es as a good e>ample. +$ere4 t$e 7us$ campaign soug$t pre!enti!e in0unctions to restrain !arious counties from performing recounts after t$e Ilorida results $ad been certified. +$e 7us$ campaign did not attempt to o!erturn results already arri!ed at4 but rat$er attempted to stop new results from coming in. En turn4 t$e Hore campaign attempted to obtain a pre!enti!e in0unction to pre!ent Ilorida3s secretary of state from certifying t$e election results. Mandatory En0unctions Alt$oug$ t$e court is !ested wit$ wide discretion to fas$ion in0uncti!e relief4 it is also restricted to restraint of a contemplated or t$reatened action. Et also mig$t compel -pecific *erformance of an act. En suc$ a case4 it issues a mandatory in0unction4 commanding t$e performance of a positi!e act. 7ecause mandatory in0unctions are $ars$4 courts do not fa!or t$em4 and t$ey rarely grant t$em. -uc$ in0unctions $a!e been issued to compel t$e remo!al of buildings or ot$er structures wrongfully placed upon t$e land of anot$er. *ermanent En0unctions A permanent or perpetual in0unction is one t$at is granted by t$e 0udgment t$at ultimately disposes of t$e in0unction suit4 ordered at t$e time of final 0udgment. +$is type of in0unction must be final relief. *ermanent in0unctions are perpetual4 pro!ided t$at t$e conditions t$at produced t$em remain permanent. +$ey $a!e been granted to pre!ent blasting upon neig$boring premises4 to en0oin t$e dumping of eart$ or ot$er material upon land4 and to pre!ent *ollution of a water supply. An indi!idual w$o $as been licensed by t$e state to practice a profession may properly demand t$at ot$ers in t$e same profession sub?scribe to t$e et$ical standards and laws t$at go!ern it. An

in0unction is a proper remedy to pre!ent t$e illegal practice of a profession4 and t$e relief may be soug$t by eit$er licensed practitioners or a professional association. +$e illegal *ractice of 1aw4 medicine4 dentistry4 and arc$itecture $as been stopped by t$e issuance of in0unctions. Acts t$at are in0urious to t$e public $ealt$ or safety may be en0oined as well. Ior e>ample4 in0unctions $a!e been issued to enforce laws pro!iding for t$e eradication of diseases in animals raised for food. +$e go!ernment $as t$e aut$ority to protect citiAens from damage by !iolence and from fear t$roug$ t$reats and intimidation. En some states4 an in0unction is t$e proper remedy to bar t$e use of !iolence against t$ose asserting t$eir rig$ts under t$e law. Acts committed wit$out &ust Cause t$at interfere wit$ t$e carrying on of a business may be en0oined if no ot$er adeBuate remedy e>ists. A +rade -ecret4 for e>ample4 may be protected by in0unction. An indi!idual3s rig$t of personal pri!acy may be protected by an in0unction if t$ere is no ot$er adeBuate remedy4 or w$ere a specific statutory pro!ision for in0uncti!e relief e>ists. An indi!idual w$ose name or picture is used for ad!ertising purposes wit$out t$e indi!idual3s consent may en0oin its use. +$e t$eory is t$at in0uncti!e relief is proper because of a celebrity3s uniBue property interest in t$e commercial use of $is or $er name and li5eness 8i.e.4 t$eir rig$t of publicity9. /estraining ,rders A /estraining ,rder is granted to preser!e t$e status Buo of t$e sub0ect of t$e contro!ersy until t$e $earing on an application for a temporary in0unction. A +emporary /estraining ,rder is an e>traordinary remedy of s$ort duration t$at is issued to pre!ent unnecessary and irreparable in0ury. .ssentially4 suc$ an order suspends proceedings until an opportunity arises to inBuire w$et$er an in0unction s$ould be granted. Gnless e>tended by t$e court4 a temporary restraining order ceases to operate upon t$e e>piration of t$e time set by its terms. Conte+pt An indi!idual w$o !iolates an in0unction may be punis$ed for Contempt of court. A person is not guilty of contempt4 $owe!er4 unless $e or s$e can be c$arged wit$ 5nowledge of t$e in0unction. Henerally4 an indi!idual w$o is c$arged wit$ contempt is entitled to a trial or a $earing. +$e penalty imposed is wit$in t$e discretion of t$e court. ,rdinarily4 punis$ment is by fine4 imprisonment4 or bot$. An e+ergenc# injunction is a temporary directi!e from a court ordering someone to cease or continue a specific be$a!ior4 depending on t$e nature of t$e case. .mergency in0unctions are used in cases w$ere people can demonstrate t$at an in0unction is needed to pre!ent serious $arm or damages beyond financial damages in t$e immediate future. +$e person w$o initially reBuested it will need to pro!ide supporting e!idence to get a permanent in0unction. Et can be a stopgap measure to address an immediate situation w$ile preparing for more long?term legal action. .mergency in0unctions can be used in a wide !ariety of settings including abuse cases4 patent infringement cases4 and c$ild custody cases. +o grant an emergency in0unction4 a 0udge must be s$own t$at serious $arm will occur unless t$e in0unction is put in place. Ior e>ample4 in a di!orce in!ol!ing abuse4 t$e abused partner mig$t reBuest an emergency in0unction to order t$e ot$er partner to stay away4 on t$e grounds of personal safety concerns. Ef t$e abused partner $as documentation li5e a $istory of police calls to t$e residence to address domestic !iolence complaints4 t$e 0udge can grant t$e in0unction. !rit of *%nd%+us A writ or order t$at is issued from a court of superior 0urisdiction t$at commands an inferior tribunal4 corporation4 Municipal Corporation4 or indi!idual to perform4 or refrain from performing4 a particular act4 t$e performance or omission of w$ic$ is reBuired by law as an obligation. A writ or order of mandamus is an e>traordinary court order because it is made wit$out t$e benefit of full 0udicial process4 or before a case $as concluded. Et may be issued by a court at any time t$at it is appropriate4 but it is usually issued in a case t$at $as already begun. Continu%nce +$e ad0ournment or postponement of an action pending in a court to a later date of t$e same or anot$er session of t$e court4 granted by a court in response to a motion made by a party to a lawsuit. +$e entry into t$e trial record of t$e ad0ournment of a case for t$e purpose of

formally e!idencing it. *arties in a lawsuit file pleadings 8written statements presenting eac$ side of t$e case before trial to elucidate t$e issues to be resol!ed9. A plaintiff w$ose complaint fails to state a Cause of Action is not entitled to a continuance to correct t$is failure4 but a defendant can ma5e a motion for a dismissal of t$e action. Cor can a defendant w$ose answer to t$e plaintiff3s complaint does not allege a meritorious defense cure t$is deficiency by see5ing a continuance4 but t$e plaintiff mig$t ma5e a motion for a -ummary &udgment in $is or $er fa!or. A continuance may be granted4 $owe!er4 in a case t$at was sc$eduled for trial before t$e issues were 0oined or clearly establis$ed. After a trial $as begun or w$ile motions are made pending t$e decision4 a court can grant a continuance pro!ided adeBuate grounds e>ist. E6culp%tor# e)idence is t$e e!idence fa!orable to t$e defendant in a criminal trial4 w$ic$ clears or tends to clear t$e defendant of guilt.U1V Et is t$e opposite of inculpatory e!idence4 w$ic$ tends to pro!e guilt. Gnited -tates4 police or prosecutor are not reBuired to disclose to t$e defendant any e>culpatory e!idence t$ey possess before t$e defendant ma5es a plea 8guilty or not guilty9. *er t$e 7rady !. Maryland decision4 prosecutors $a!e a duty to disclose e>culpatory e!idence e!en if not reBuested. +$oug$ it is true t$at t$e prosecution is not reBuired to searc$ for e>culpatory e!idence and must only disclose t$e e!idence it $as in its possession4 custody or control4 t$e prosecution3s duty to disclose includes all information 5nown to any member of its team4 e.g.4 police4 in!estigators4 crime lab4 etc. En 7rady !. Maryland4 t$e G.-. -upreme Court $eld t$at suc$ a reBuirement follows from constitutional due process and is consistent wit$ t$e prosecutor3s duty to see5 0ustice. .>ample A !ictim is murdered by stabbing and an accused person is arrested for t$e murder. .!idence includes a 5nife co!ered wit$ blood near t$e !ictim and t$e accused found co!ered in blood at t$e murder scene by t$e police. uring t$e in!estigation4 t$e police inter!iew a witness claiming to $a!e watc$ed t$e stabbing occur. +$e witness ma5es a statement to t$e police claiming t$e stabbing was by anot$er un5nown person4 not t$e accused. +$e witness3s statement is e>culpatory e!idence4 since it could introduce reasonable doubt as to t$e guilt of t$e accused. +$e police belie!e t$e witness3s account is not true or t$e witness is unreliable and c$oose to not follow up on t$e lead. +$e prosecutor is obliged to inform t$e accused and t$eir attorney of t$e witness statement e!en if t$e police doubt t$e witness3s !ersion of e!ents. Ef t$ey fail to do so4 t$e defendant would $a!e grounds for appeal or for a motion to dismiss. court doc5et ? cases in a court calendar. motion ? n. a formal reBuest made to a 0udge for an order or 0udgment. Motions are made in court all t$e time for many purposesF to continue 8postpone9 a trial to a later date4 to get a modification of an order4 for temporary c$ild support4 for a 0udgment4 for dismissal of t$e opposing party3s case4 for a re$earing4 for sanctions 8payment of t$e mo!ing party3s costs or attorney3s fees94 or for doAens of ot$er purposes. Most motions reBuire a written petition4 a written brief of legal reasons for granting t$e motion 8often called 6points and aut$orities694 written notice to t$e attorney for t$e opposing party and a $earing before a 0udge. Howe!er4 during a trial or a $earing4 an oral motion may be permitted. plea ? in criminal law t$e response by an accused defendant to eac$ c$arge of t$e commission of a crime *leas are entered orally at arraignment 8first court appearance9 or a postponed arraignment. ? *leas are normally 6not guilty6 4 6guilty6 4 6no contest6 ? no contest ? admitting facts but unwilling to plead guilty ? delatory plea ? c$allengin 0urisdiction of t$e court or claiming t$ey are wrong defendant continuance ? n. a postponement of a date of a trial4 $earing or ot$er court appearance to a later fi>ed date by order of t$e court4 or upon a stipulation 8legal agreement9 by t$e attorneys and appro!ed by t$e court or 8w$ere local rules permit9 by t$e cler5 of t$e court. En general courts frown

on too many continuances and will not allow t$em unless t$ere is a legitimate reason. -ome states demand payment of fees for continuances to discourage delays.

1@ *iscell%neous Topics
C%n t"e +ot"er of +# c"ildren t%.e t"e+ to li)e in %not"er st%te -it"out getting +# consent$ I %+ t"e non&custodi%l p%rent <ou must file for more custody or file an action against $er rig$t to mo!e wit$ your c$ild. -ome times t$e courts may find no merit for $er to mo!e suc$ a distance. Her merits for mo!e would consist of 19 a better paying 0ob or marrage to impro!e Buality of life. 29 Ef t$e bul5 of $er family li!es in t$e state to w$ere s$e is mo!ing. 39 Ef s$e is not mo!ing on a w$im or a split decision to interefer wit$ fostering and on going relations$ip wit$ t$e non?custodial parent. $ttpFJJfamily.findlaw.comJc$ild?custodyJc$ild?custody?relocation?laws.$tml I %+ % s+%ll e+%il "osting co+p%n# C%n I leg%ll# )ie- +# custo+er0s e+%ils$ 1# G-C W 2")2 forbids a company li5e yours from disclosing t$e content of an electronic communication unless t$ey $a!e consent of t$e intended recipient4 or t$ey read it by accident and find e!idence of a crime t$erein4 or certain ot$er narrow e>ceptions apply. I %nd +%n# ot"ers %re /eing sued /# % Co+p%n# %fter signing % contr%ct for s%tellite ser)ices %nd finding out t"%t its do-n "%lf t"e ti+e !e %ll -%nt to get out of our ser)ice contr%cts %nd -"en -e do -e get sued for /re%.ing t"e contr%ct !"o do -e co+pl%in to for co+p%nies li.e t"is $ Complain to t$e -tate8s9 Attorney Heneral8s9 and Consumer AffairsK also t$e -tate8s9 -ecretary8ies9 of -tate may $a!e offices for t$is type of t$ing. Iurt$er4 possibly call your local G.-. Attorney3s office for more ideas. Also4 searc$ t$e 777 website8s9 for t$is company for e>isitng complaints ??? and also ma5e one. 8*lus searc$ for ot$er respecti!e agencies w$ic$ may be able to $elp.9 Also do Admissions ' *roduction of ocs. Admit efendant $as no balance owing. *lease *roduce ,riginal or a Certified copy of ContractJAgreement4 s$owing all parties in!ol!ed4 signatures and terms of t$e contract. En many states4 8/ead your /ules of Ci!. *rocedure on isco!ery ? Admissions9 it states if Admissions aren3t Answered wit$in ]]]L of days4 it is deemed Admitted; E $ad an attorney tell me4 t$at3s $ow $e wins most of $is lawsuits. &ust an idea.

$ttpFJJen.wi5ipedia.orgJwi5iJ1awsuit $ttpFJJen.wi5ipedia.orgJwi5iJCause]of]action $ttpFJJen.wi5ipedia.orgJwi5iJEmplied]cause]of]action $ttpFJJen.wi5ipedia.orgJwi5iJ+,/+ $ttpFJJen.wi5ipedia.orgJwi5iJ*1AEC+EII $ttpsFJJen.wi5ipedia.orgJwi5iJ-ubpoena]duces]tecum $ttpFJJlegal?dictionary.t$efreedictionary.comJin0unction $ttpFJJwww.americanbar.orgJgroupsJpublic]educationJresourcesJlaw]related]education]networ5J$o w]courts]wor5Jcases.$tml $ttpFJJwww.0urisdictionary.comJforumsJs$owt$read.p$p@1)63?Motion?for?&udicial? Cotice'p^42)#Lpost42)# 7uilding +rial Coteboo5s $ttpFJJwww.0amespublis$ing.com $ttpFJJwww.americanbar.orgJgroupsJpublic]educationJresourcesJlaw]related]education]networ5J$o w]courts]wor5Jcases.$tml $ttpFJJdictionary.law.comJ *ro -e *ro0ect of Minnesota $ttpFJJwww.fedbar.orgJprosepro0ect2)11 */, -. HGE . 7,,D $ttpFJJwww.mnd.uscourts.go!J*ro?-eJ*ro?-e?Ci!il?Huideboo5.pdf 3%+il# Court Contempt ,f Court for *arenting +ime (iolations $ttpFJJoregondi!orceblog.comJwordpressJ2))%J)1Jcontempt?of?court?for?parenting?time?!iolationsJ How to fig$t Copyrig$t trolls $ttpFJJfig$tcopyrig$trolls.com E* address not enoug$ $ttpFJJwww.digitaltrends.comJwebJip?address?not?enoug$?to?identify?online?pirates?0udge?rulesJ 3ree 'eg%l Help (olunteer 1awyer for t$e ay $ttpFJJnycourts.go!JcourtsJnycJ$ousingJ!lfd]$sg]prospecti!eattys.s$tml $ttpFJJwww.reddit.comJrJlegalad!iceJ $ttpFJJmn.go!JlawlibJprose.$tml C%se Rese%rc"( 1ocal 1aw -c$ool 1ibrary 1ocal Court $ouse 1ocal 7ar Association Online Resources( $ttpFJJwww.fastcase.comJ T%%.))Jmont$