Professor Porter created this KZread channel to do his small part to train his future colleagues in the legal profession and assist law students, college and high school mock trial participants with trial skills.
Professor Wes Porter served as a trial attorney with the Department of Justice's Criminal Division, Fraud Section, in Washington D.C., the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Hawaii and the JAG Corps for the U.S. Navy stationed in the Trial Service Office Pacific. After lecturing, coaching mock trial and teaching as an adjunct professor for years, he moved to academia full-time teaching courses in Evidence, Criminal Law and Procedure, and skills courses like Trial Advocacy. Professor Porter earned tenure, became a full professor of law, and led a center devoted to litigation and trial skills.
Пікірлер
plaintiff resopnse😢
bf801d
Proof already submitted. ABA Member ID # 05220327
co counsel finical code cvc insurance claim at lunch
This is exactly what I needed
This guy is probably the Mock Trial Bible for teams that are just starting out As is our team :)
You are THE BEST!!! Thanks for this beautiful explanation, Professor. I love you
If you get your motion of discovery you should know what evidence they are going to use. Right?
A motion to compel? Most often, a party files a motion to compel when they have requested materials (discovery) that they believe they are entitled to and the opposing side refuses to turn those materials over. This is NOT an evidentiary motion
@@professorporter well sir, while I’m not sure the exact name it’s called motion of discovery here and you get to look at whatever they are planning on using against you.
When are you supposed to bring up prejudicial objections?
You object when the questioning attorney asks a question that calls for improper information including a response that is UNFAIRLY prejudicial under Rule 403
Hi, professor, can this rule apply divorce settlement communication? There are compromise offers too!
So helpful for all the diarrhea mouth disembling demons im dealing with. Thanks. I assume a statement to police on body cam used as the sole evidence to arrest someone would be good enough for impeachment and truth. Please confirm 🙏
I had a prosecutor and a judge tell me that this method is required if you are going to be impeaching a witness with the prior inconsistent statement. They said the fact that I was not using it meant that I could not cross-examine the witness. Are there any cases or rules on that?
Yes, it’s a specific process, based in the rules, that if done correctly, works very well in front of the jury. If the cross examining attorney deviates from the specific process, then it can fall flat or get shut down by the witness or judge.
Thank you for this! Super simple breakdown of this rule.
literally so helpful thank you
I am facing a tough deposition you just answered my main concern about rapid fire yes/no questions and if I can say yes ... But. I have a great atty. Just haven't gone to prep meetings yet. Deposition is in 10 days
Great video! I couldn't find anything on re-direct Thanks Professor Porter.
Hooray
"...but not including statement of memory or belief" is always what's gets me. Qualifying 803(3) statements can often be mixed in with conclusory statements.
👍🏽👍🏽
This was great!!! Thank you :)
So cute!
Now a SENIOR in high school. Crazy
Thanks so much for your channel and videos. Truly grateful.
Thanks a lot, this sub-point was killing me. Great presentation!!!
But what does feasibility mean????
Is it possible? Are they able to do it? The famous case related to early cars with engines in the rear and the mfr said it wasn’t feasible to move the engine to the front. The proponent may be able to introduce that the mfr moved the engine, not as a subsequent remedial measure, but to show it was feasible.
Id give anything to be at Matsumotos and on Schofield again
Thank you for a clear explanation of this exception to the rule.
Great videos but difficult to listen to with headphones. Too many "mic pops", I would suggest getting a stand alone microphone and pop filter for better audio.
As an old lawyer (who rarely practiced), I've come to believe the Rules of Evidence are key to both the law and to clear thinking. Financial investments, law, foreign policy, investigative journalism ... it all comes down to "What do we know? And, how do we know what we know?" Everybody who wants to analyze anything should at least study the Rules of Evidence, imo.
Hear, hear
Great video... Suggestion: get a "pop filter" for your headset to mitigate the popping noises in the audio that come from your breath.
Gteat job new friend
I will use this
Great speaker! Do you have a sample motion you can share that would be helpful in illustrating these concepts?
Thank you. How to satisfy Best evidence rule, if need to mail (certified) a letter typed & printed from computer? (no handwriting or signature on letter, whole letter comes from printer). There doesn't seem to be a way to keep exactly what you send (i.e. original). Even if one sends a copy of original letter and keep original letter, then one still keep NOT what was sent mail, i.e. the copy sent by mail is now considered being "original"? Or am I understanding it wrong? Thank you!
5:11 Knowing about 0.0957 percent of anything legalistic, but having fun with language, this was amusing. If the phrase “talking into your jacket” is synonymous with “talking under your breath,” I think the appropriate word for that situation would be “MUTTERANCE.” I think “utterance” is acceptable, however archaic, in the situation of 803.2. If the students need to remember the actual phrase “utterance” for testing, I’d keep that clunky word and build onto it to facilitate memory, replacing “utterance,” with something comically visual like “an agitated ’SPUTTERANCE.’”
PS Watching trials is my new hobby. I’m learning the lingo so I can follow along more effectively and critique more quickly.
Help me i have court tomorrow and i dont have a lawyer. The defendants lawyer just send me a motion in limine about liability insurance. How do i counter that motion? Case was a hit and run. What should i do 😔
You are the best! Thank you so much professor.
Thank you so much for your videos. They have really helped me in studying for finals!
I know this is 2 yrs old😢 but I just found this channel and I am so glad you took the time to do these videos. I had a question already lol. Say it is a criminal trail , the state vs ____, the state holds burden. If the defendant chooses to represent himself in court does the burden of proof than rest with the defendant.?
No. The burden remains with the government in a criminal case regardless of whether the defendant is represented by an attorney or proceeds pro se (represents himself).
@@professorporter thank you for answering ! I know it is kind of a bizarre question, I actually think it was court tv (maybe law& crime) that was talking about the Darrell Brooks case and had said the burden of proof changes.. 🤨 I thought it sounded odd..great videos by the way!
Thank you for the greaat video! Just had one question: Is it also okay to use it in cross examination? for ex) prosecutor to the defense witness: the defendant told you this --
Yes. The rules don’t distinguish between direct and cross. So long as it’s said by the defendant and offered by the prosecution.
Pls clarify what is meant by party opponent. Thank you
“Party opponent” is a phase that comes from the rule and it means the other party. If you represent the plaintiff, than the defendant is the party opponent. If you rep the defendant, then the plaintiff is the party opponent.
@@professorporter thank you! I figured it out after listening twice
Very insightful
This video answered the question better than any other. Thank you. Merry Christmas!
Am I correct that some in some jurisdictions, an objection based on a failure to employ this proceedure would be called an objection to "predicate"?
You may be referring to “lacks foundation” - just keep in mind that foundation applies to a rule
What if it’s a photo of yourself or a email to the insurance company? What about screenshots?
Same application of the rule. We want the photo, email or screenshot, instead of testimony about the content of those items
This is such critical knowledge; offering it in this format is a public service and a truly good deed. Much Love and appreciation. There should be awards for this kind of thing.
I totally agree
Thank you from IU McKinney Law! If only you were my actual evidence professor
Easily the best presentation of the rules of evidence. Thank you Professor.
Can you do this on cross? For example, if I have prior statement from Bob at a Grand Jury hearing that "Jim is a liar," and then on cross I ask Bob if Jim is a liar and Bob says no, can I then use 801(d)(1)(A) to admit Bob's statement from in front of the Grand Jury both for impeachment of Bob and for the truth of the matter?
Yes. Of course. Impeachment by prior inconsistent statement typically occurs on cross
How I do contac professor port to asked questions
I have a question about the statement you made at 2:14 where you said, "We know we did a bunch of things wrong as the defendants in this case. We want to make it right; we want to move on and allow you to move on plaintiff. That statement can't be used." Why would that statement be inadmissible if there is no dispute? Is what you're saying that there was an initial dispute between the parties, and the defendant is now wanting to negotiate, so his/her statement of conceding is protected under rule 408?
Yes. There was a “dispute” and the statement is protected under Rule 408.