Popular in Evidence & Legal Reasoning
Popular in Department
This 2 page Class Notes was uploaded by Hannah Notetaker on Thursday September 22, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to POLI 3380 at Auburn University taught by Dr. Clifton Perry in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 8 views.
Reviews for evidence 9/20
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 09/22/16
9/20/16 Rule 408: Compromise Oﬀers and Negotiations evidence of the following is not admissible: on behalf of any party - either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction furnishing, promising, or oﬀering to accept - a valuable consideration in order to compromise the claim conduct or a statement made during compromise negotiations about the claim - except when oﬀered in a criminal case and when the negotiations about the claim - except when oﬀered in a criminal case and when the negotiations related to a claim by a public oﬃce in the exercise of its regulatory, investigative, or enforce authority the court may admit evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness’s bias or prejudice, negating a contention of undue delay, or proving an eﬀort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution diﬀerence in party admission and statements made about conduct you cannot talk about negotiations in court or talk about what was said in court when disputing you cannot impeach someone with a prior inconsistent statement Rule 409: Oﬀers to Pay Medical and Similar Expenses evidence of furnishing, promising to pay, or oﬀering to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses resulting from an injury is not admissible to prove liability for the injury someone oﬀers to pay for your medical expenses, but you cannot use this statement to sue a person or go against them in a lawsuit promotes good samaritan because it allows for people to oﬀer to help you without fear it will be used against them Rule 410: Please, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements in a civil or criminal case, evidence of the following is not admissible against the defendant who made the plea or participated in the plea discussions: a guilty plea that was later withdrawn a nolo contendere plea - has issue preclusion a statement about either of those pleas made during a proceeding under Federal Rule or Criminal Procedure 11 or a comparable state procedure a statement made during plea discussions did not result in a guilty plea or they resulted in a later-withdrawn guilty plea the court may admit a statement described in rule 410 (statement sections) in: any proceeding in which another statement made during the same plea or plea discussion has been introduced, if in fairness both statements ought to be considered together a criminal proceeding for perjury or false statement, if the defendant made the statement under oath, on the record, and in the presence of counsel Issue Preclusion: you have a set of litigating facts or a “case and controversy” and you sue on a claim in the list of facts, so all the other facts are precluded - you only get one time to sue so thats why people sue for everything but if it is two separate cases and you have the same set of litigating facts then you can sue on claims from other facts from the ﬁrst time if you get sued for the same thing twice then that issue is precluded already and you don’t have to prove it again Plea Negotiation: a bargain - prosecution gives up a higher sentence and the defendant gives up a jury trial and pleading not guilty or contesting in a hearing Mezzanatto Case charged with drug dealing prosecuting attorney never talks to him, defendant attorney has to approach the prosecutor to negotiate this prosecutor only will negotiate if the defendant waves right to use negotiations in court if he takes the stand and contradicts what they have said - if he contradicts them then the prosecutor will use them to impeach him - he agreed negotiated plea and prosecutor doesn’t think he was being forth coming so they went to trial - defendant gets on stand and says things contradictive to the plea negotiations so the prosecutor impeaches him and wins
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'