EVIDENCE



Grading Key, Fall 1995





QUESTION I

150 points



I. Your evidence on the adultery is, to say the least, weak. Your evidence of adultery includes the following:

I-A. Chuck's girlfriend, Flo Flooze, was married to Fred Flooze at the time of the adultery (December 1994). Back in January 1995, Fred sued for divorce and was granted an uncontested Article 102 (no fault) divorce on July 28, 1995. Flo denies any adultery ever occurred. Fred, angry at Flo, called your law office and told you that Flo admitted to him that she had committed adultery with Chuck E. Churner. Fred now has changed his mind and says he will refuse to testify. Can you force him to do so? Discuss.

Relevant question: When did she admit the adultery to Fred?

6 points ________

Were they married on date of communication?

6 points ________

If during the marriage, the spousal communication privilege applies 6 points ________
Privilege belongs to both spouses 6 points ________
Privilege survives divorce 6 points ________
Spousal witness privilege inapplicable in non-criminal cases 6 points ________


I-B. In January 1995, Chuck and Brenda went to a psychologist for marriage counselling. In a joint session, Chuck admitted to Dr. Phroide in Brenda's presence that he had committed adultery with Flo. You wish to call Dr. Phroide, but his attorney will claim privilege. Can you force Phroide to testify? Discuss.

No spousal communication privilege in a divorce 6 points ________
Was privilege waived by discussion being in presence of husband? 6 points ________
Or does medical joint-therapy privilege override to prevent disclosure? 6 points ________
Discussion of policy considerations 6 points ________


I-C. A bartender tells you a woman is furious with you. "Just cuz I was ballin' this jerk Chuck Churner, some lawyer makes me go to court." From the description, it is obviously Flo Flooze. You want to use her statement to the bartender. Discuss specifically how if at all you can use the statement at trial.

Not an excited utterance 6 points ________
Flo should be brought to court and should testify 6 points ________
If Flo testifies differently, she may be impeached with her statement 6 points ________
Either by asking her about the statement 6 points ________
Or by calling the bartender as a witness 6 points ________
If Flo unavailable, her is a statement against interest 6 points ________
Discussion of pecuniary versus penal interest 6 points ________
Need for corroboration if against only penal interest 6 points ________


I-D. In 1991, Chuck committed adultery with Passionada. Chuck admitted the adultery in a letter to Brenda, and Brenda forgave him. Brenda wishes to use the letter. Can she? How? Discuss.

Evidence of other "crimes" generaly inadmissible 6 points ________
Except to show system, intent and plan 6 points ________
In this case, evidence will probably be admitted 6 points ________


I-E. In 1992, Chuck subscribed to Centerfold Girls, the subscription coming to his office. In 1993, he entertained a client, Bill Dittser, at The Topless Club. Brenda wishes to use these incidents as part of her adultery evidence. May she? Discuss.

The evidence is irrelevant to any issue in the case 6 points ________
Probative value is outweighed by danger of prejudice and confusion 6 points ________




QUESTION II

150 points



Chuck's stock in the firm is community and will need to be valued. Percival Pennypincher, CPA, Chuck's accountant for years, will testify that the stock is worthless. He bases this conclusion on the "book value" method of appraisal, which most accountants reject as inadequate.

II-A. May Percival Pennypincher testify as to the value of the business using th "book value" method of appraisal? Discuss.

Pennypincher will qualify as an expert 12 points ________
Since Daubert, basis of expert's opinion need not be generally accepted 12 points ________
Court must perform a balancing test 12 points ________
General acceptability is only one factor now 12 points ________
Pennypincher may testify 12 points ________
Opposition may discredit Pennypincher through other testimony 12 points ________


II-B. You found an article in the Journal of Accountancy entitled "How to Evaluate a Commodities Brokerage Business." You wish to use it to impeach Mr. Pennypincher. Can you? Explain in detail how if at all you might be allowed to do so. Discuss.

Article is a learned treatise 12 points ________
Pennypincher must identify it as reliable authority 12 points ________
Either in court or on deposition 12 points ________
Or the court may take judicial notice that it is reliable authority 12 points ________
Which in this case is unlikely 12 points ________
Or counsel must have another expert testify to article's reliability 12 points ________




QUESTION III

150 points



III. On the custody issue, Brenda complains of Chuck's driving.

III-A. Specifically, Chuck was ticketed in 1995 by Officer Sam Jackson for allowing Brad to ride without a seat belt and Bobbie without a car seat. Chuck was found not guilty in city court.

III-A-I. May you introduce either the police report or a certified copy of the court record in any way? Discuss.

The police report is inadmissible as an investigative report 6 points ________
Record of arrest and not guilty verdict is inadmissible for impeachment 6 points ________
Officer must be called to testify in court as to the facts of the arrest 6 points ________
If officer testifies differently, report may be used to impeach him 6 points ________


III-A-2. When you call Officer Jackson as a witness, his memory lapses and he remembers nothing. Explain in detail how you will deal with this. If the officer persists in his amnesia, explain in further detail how you will deal with this. Under what circumstances, if any, is his written report admissible? Discuss.

If he fails to remember, his present memory may be refreshed 6 points ________
Report is shown to him, read by him, and then handed back 6 points ________
If he still fails to remember, use report as past recollection recorded 6 points ________
Must show that the report was made or adopted when fresh in memory 6 points ________
And that the report reflects that knowledge correctly 6 points ________
Read into evidence but not taken to jury room 6 points ________


III-A-3. Will Officer Jackson be allowed to testify as to the facts of the incident? Discuss.

Yes 6 points ________
Parenting behavior is an issue in a child custody case 6 points ________
The failure to buckle up is relevant and not merely used for impeachment 6 points ________
Failure to convict in traffic court is irrelevant for this purpose 6 points ________
Test there is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; test here is mere preponderance 6 points ________


III-B. Only five months ago, Chuck was convicted of DWI. Assume this is relevant (as indeed it surely is in a child custody case). How exactly do you intend to prove the conviction? Discuss.

Ask Chuck about it 6 points ________
Offer into evidence a certified copy of the judgment of conviction 6 points ________
Document is self-proving 6 points ________
There may be a question as to identity (is this the same Chuck Churner?) 6 points ________
In such case, officer still may be needed to identify Churner as defendant 6 points ________


III-C. Chuck has witnesses, too. If allowed to testify, a nosy neighbor, Granny Gabber, will testify that in her opinion Chuck is an ideal parent and your client, Brenda, is the neighborhood liar. May she so testify? Discuss.

Her lay opinion is probably admissible as to his parenting 6 points ________
Can she give a basis for her lay opinion? 6 points ________
Opinion testimony as to character is not admissible in Louisiana 6 points ________
Witness's opinion as to character will not get in 6 points ________
Only reputation in community is ever admissible in Louisiana 6 points ________
Correct way is to ask, "Are you familiar with the reputation of . . . ." 6 points ________
Since character is issue in custody case, proper evidence will be admitted 6 points ________




QUESTION IV

50 points



Before Chuck moved out Christmas 1994, Brenda noticed alcohol and perfume. So Brenda recorded all calls made or received from any phone in the house. One conversation was captured while the two were still living together -- in which Chuck told Flo Flooze: "That sure was good last night." After Chuck moved out, Brenda captured a conversation between Chuck and Brenda on December 31, 1994, in which Chuck told her: "Brenda, I went to bed with Flo. I'm so sorry." You want to introduce both tapes into evidence. Can you? How?

Call between Chuck and Flo was illegally taped 6 points ________
The first tape is inadmissible 6 points ________
Call between Brenda and Chuck was legally made with Brenda's consent 6 points ________
The second tape is admissible 6 points ________
Chuck's statement is an admission of a party 6 points ________
And, if he testifies, a witness's admission against interest 6 points ________
And if he denies adultery, it is a prior inconsistent statement 6 points ________
Brenda must identify the tape 6 points ________
Offer it into evidence 6 points ________
And then play it 6 points ________
Bonus for practical pointers on the taping of conversations 6 points ________


Return to The Castle Classroom


Copyright ©2002 by M. R. Franks - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED