Professor Charles Rose from Stetson University College of Law discusses non character theories of relevancy for character evidence.
Жүктеу.....
Пікірлер: 20
@samtala79732 жыл бұрын
I love your videos and how you explain topics! So clear and concise. Thank you!
@luciavargas86593 жыл бұрын
I appreciate how clear and concise you explain this confusing topic! Thank you!
@Izz1576 жыл бұрын
Your videos have been extremely helpful! Thank you!
@robertboyer285310 жыл бұрын
thank you for your videos.
@noorel-gohary35506 жыл бұрын
How eloquent. Thank you.
@NateEsq5 жыл бұрын
Crystal clear. Thank you.
@mogeagahian61238 жыл бұрын
Excellent. Thank you.
@rockstarphill11 жыл бұрын
Great Job!!! Very Helpful
@stacykaiser4688 Жыл бұрын
The respondent in deposition stated he was not at a location. I have GPS evidence (freely given) off his phone verifying he was there (or at least his phone was). Any thoughts on how you would cross examine. Any chance I could email a few more details.
@CharlesRoseIII
Жыл бұрын
Stacy, shoot me an email with more particulars. Best to use thetrialadvocate@gmail.com. I’m giving a speech in a bit, but will look at it later today and get back to you. Please include your jurisdiction when you send the info. Thanks!
@biebskenni66026 жыл бұрын
You are going to love this. So at my most recent murder trial I brought up the defendant’s homosexuality to prove motive in a way that the defendant’s attorney never expected. Obviously his attorney objected immediately on relevance grounds but at our sidebar conversation I explained that I wanted to show the defendant wanted to be imprisoned where he would be surrounded by only men. That was his motive to kill. When the Judge overruled the objection the defendant outraged, immediately got up to confess that he had done it but that he was not homosexual. Obviously his attorney moved to strike the confession but the judge explained that there was no lack of trustworthiness nor coercion. The jury didn’t deliberate very long before finding him guilty of aggravated murder. I know this is not really 404b related and this was also in a state, not federal proceeding but it had a surprising outcome.
@jgc1077
Жыл бұрын
Hahaha!
@danringo94011 жыл бұрын
Great lecture on 404b
@TheJansport111 жыл бұрын
Great video!! I only wished that they would have made this video under the revised language of the Federal Rules of Evidence (post December 1, 2011).
Пікірлер: 20
I love your videos and how you explain topics! So clear and concise. Thank you!
I appreciate how clear and concise you explain this confusing topic! Thank you!
Your videos have been extremely helpful! Thank you!
thank you for your videos.
How eloquent. Thank you.
Crystal clear. Thank you.
Excellent. Thank you.
Great Job!!! Very Helpful
The respondent in deposition stated he was not at a location. I have GPS evidence (freely given) off his phone verifying he was there (or at least his phone was). Any thoughts on how you would cross examine. Any chance I could email a few more details.
@CharlesRoseIII
Жыл бұрын
Stacy, shoot me an email with more particulars. Best to use thetrialadvocate@gmail.com. I’m giving a speech in a bit, but will look at it later today and get back to you. Please include your jurisdiction when you send the info. Thanks!
You are going to love this. So at my most recent murder trial I brought up the defendant’s homosexuality to prove motive in a way that the defendant’s attorney never expected. Obviously his attorney objected immediately on relevance grounds but at our sidebar conversation I explained that I wanted to show the defendant wanted to be imprisoned where he would be surrounded by only men. That was his motive to kill. When the Judge overruled the objection the defendant outraged, immediately got up to confess that he had done it but that he was not homosexual. Obviously his attorney moved to strike the confession but the judge explained that there was no lack of trustworthiness nor coercion. The jury didn’t deliberate very long before finding him guilty of aggravated murder. I know this is not really 404b related and this was also in a state, not federal proceeding but it had a surprising outcome.
@jgc1077
Жыл бұрын
Hahaha!
Great lecture on 404b
Great video!! I only wished that they would have made this video under the revised language of the Federal Rules of Evidence (post December 1, 2011).
Do you ever answer specific questions?
@CharlesRoseIII
Жыл бұрын
Sure, if it is something I’ve got knowledge of.
makes more sense now. thanks