Podcasts about Admissibility

Robert Sallander presented at the Santa Clara County Bar Association's Civil Practice Committee's seminar on Trial Admissibility on April 24, 2025. The following is an except from that presentation where Bob discussed the Court of Appeal decision Odom v. L.A. Community College District. Stay tune for other highlights from this seminar on admissibility. Have a topic you'd like Bob to cover? Submit it to questions@gpsllp.com, or connect with Bob directly on LinkedIn.And if you'd like to know more about GPSL, check out our website.You can also find us on LinkedIn, X, and Facebook.

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike celebrates the Charter's 43rd birthday! On April 17, 1982 the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force. Listen to learn about some of the early discussion on the remedy provisions, from s. 26 to s. 24 to s. 24(1) and (2).The 2025 International Use of Force Expert Conference April 29-May 1, 2025This conference is designed for professionals who have an interest in developing a deeper understanding of this subject matter area, or in building the foundational skills towards becoming a court-qualified use of force expert.Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

Experts play a crucial role in patent cases. Experts opine on claim construction, infringement, invalidity and the proper amount of damages. And the exclusion of an expert witness can significantly impact the outcome of a case. But the standard for excluding experts in patent cases appears to be in flux.In BakerHostetler's second annual IP Perspectives (BHIPP) thought leadership piece, the Intellectual Property Practice Group highlights a myriad of IP-related topics that are at the forefront of industry developments and current challenges and trends.

John Collins discusses emerging forensic results in the investigation of the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, and why one evidentiary issue might allow the defense to make some noise. References Mangione attorney says he will challenge forensic results' admissibility, accuracy Crime Lab Report (2019, Academic Press)

Source: Lecture Two of Five: Evidence Law Main Themes: Hearsay: Hearsay is an out-of-court statement presented to prove the truth of the matter it asserts. It's generally inadmissible due to concerns about reliability since the declarant (the person who made the statement) isn't present for cross-examination. The lecture emphasizes that hearsay rules are crucial for ensuring evidence credibility and upholding justice. Hearsay Exceptions: The lecture explores several exceptions to the hearsay rule, categorizing them based on the declarant's availability. These exceptions aim to establish the reliability of the out-of-court statement even without cross-examination. Practical Application: Understanding the rationale behind each exception and practicing their application is vital. This helps develop the ability to swiftly identify hearsay and apply the correct exception in legal settings. Most Important Ideas/Facts: I. Hearsay Defined: Federal Rule of Evidence 801: This rule defines hearsay as an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of what it asserts. Reliability Concerns: Hearsay's reliability is questioned because the absence of cross-examination prevents scrutiny of the declarant's perception, memory, and potential biases. Cross-examination is a crucial tool for attorneys to assess a witness's credibility. II. Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule: A. Exceptions Regardless of Declarant Availability: Present Sense Impression (FRE 803(1)): A statement describing an event made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it. Its reliability stems from the immediacy of the statement. Excited Utterance (FRE 803(2)): A statement relating to a startling event, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event. The emotional impact is thought to bolster reliability. Statements of Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition (FRE 803(3)): Statements reflecting the declarant's then-existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition. Recorded Recollection (FRE 803(5)): A record made by a witness when their memory was fresh, which they can vouch for but cannot currently recall. Business Records Exception (FRE 803(6)): Records made in the regular course of business, near the time of the event. Their reliability is supported by the regularity and business motivation for accuracy. B. Exceptions When Declarant is Unavailable (FRE 804): Former Testimony (FRE 804(b)(1)): Testimony from a prior hearing or deposition where the opposing party had the chance to cross-examine the declarant. Dying Declarations (FRE 804(b)(2)): Statements made under the belief of imminent death, concerning the cause or circumstances of the impending death. The belief in impending death is considered to compel truthfulness. Statements Against Interest (FRE 804(b)(3)): Statements so contrary to the declarant's self-interest that a reasonable person wouldn't have made them unless they were true. III. Residual Exception (FRE 807): A "catch-all" provision for reliable hearsay that doesn't fit other exceptions. Admissibility is at the judge's discretion and requires a finding that it serves justice and is necessary for the case. IV. Emphasis on Practical Application: The lecture stresses using hypotheticals to practice applying hearsay rules and exceptions. This hones the ability to recognize and apply the appropriate exception quickly, a crucial skill for both exams and real-life litigation. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Each week, the leading journalists in legal tech choose their top stories of the week to discuss with our other panelists.   This week's topics: 00:00 - Introductions 05:45 - Startup Alley Nominations now open 09:05 - The $2000 paralegal (Selected by Joe Patrice) 17:25 - Alt Legal (Selected by Bob Ambrogi) 21:10 - Night of the Living Bots: AI Agents Are Creeping into the News (Selected by Stephanie Wilkins) 25:06 - New York Surrogates Court on Admissibility of AI Evidence (Selected by Niki Black) 31:53 - Supreme Courts of Delaware and Georgia Act to Regulate Use of Generative AI in the Courts (Selected by Bob Ambrogi) 38:58 - Her teenage son killed himself after talking to a chatbot; now she's suing (Selected by Victor Li)

Armed men entered the home of Jennifer Pan and her parents. They shot and killed Mrs. Pan. They shot and seriously injured Mr. Pan. Jennifer Pan, Mr. Wong, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Mylvaganam and Mr. Carty were charged with first degree murder and attempted murder. They were tried before a jury. Mid-trial, proceedings against Mr. Carty were severed. The jury convicted Jennifer Pan, Mr. Wong, Mr. Crawford and Mr. Mylvaganam on both counts. They appealed from their convictions. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals from the convictions for the attempted murder of Mr. Pan. It allowed the appeals from the convictions for the first degree murder of Mrs. Pan and ordered a new trial in relation to her death. Argued Date 2024-10-17 Keywords Criminal law — Charge to jury — Offences — Evidence — Remitting counts for retrial — Jurors — What is the test for placing alternative theories of liability for a homicide to a jury, what deference is due to trial judge's determination of whether an alternative has an air of reality, and whether the curative proviso ought to have been applied to decision not to put alternatives to the jury — Whether appellate courts should remit associated counts for retrial where doing otherwise risks inconsistent trial verdicts, whether the tainting doctrine is part of the test for remittance or for application of curative proviso, and which party bears the onus for establishing tainting and remittance — Scope of the trial judge's duty in a multi-person complex prosecution to tailor to an accused instructions to the jury on use of evidence of a co-accused's propensity for violence — Whether trial judge failed to properly assess evidence in considering reasonable apprehension of bias or appearance of unfairness arising from juror interference, sufficiency of inquiry into juror issues and deference due to trial judge's decisions on juror issues — Admissibility and use of presentations summarizing evidence, what rules and procedural requirements apply to determine admissibility and use by a jury of aids summarizing evidence supporting Crown counsel's case, and whether PowerPoint presentation supporting Crown counsel's case was improperly allowed to go into jury room? Notes (Ontario) (Criminal) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Can we really ensure the safety and dignity of elderly care facility residents when young adults with severe mental health and addiction issues are placed among them? This episode exposes the unsettling reality in Victoria and Nanaimo, where vulnerable elderly individuals share long-term care homes with younger adults facing significant challenges. We break down the legal ramifications, analyze the Resident's Bill of Rights, and reveal shocking staff reports of drug use, violence, and inadequate staffing. The lack of enforcement mechanisms leaves elderly residents defenceless, sparking a crucial conversation about the need for alternative facilities.Shifting gears, we also tackle the complex world of Canadian criminal law, specifically focusing on out-of-court statements. What circumstances make these statements admissible, and how reliable are they? With examples like dying declarations and res gestae, we explore the stringent criteria judges use to weigh their validity. A landmark Supreme Court of Canada case involving a pellet gun and the scrutiny of a statement's reliability provides a riveting backdrop. Join us as we demystify common misconceptions about police statements, highlighting that true justice hinges on solid witness testimonies in court.Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.

We discuss the cell phone pings and DNA evidence at the center of this case, from admissibility to potential impact during trial.  Check us out online: www.instagram.com/kt_studios www.tiktok.com/@officialktstudios www.kt-studios.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We take a look at two recent filings in the Delphi murders case.Send tips to murdersheet@gmail.com.The Murder Sheet is a production of Mystery Sheet LLC.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In the last episode, I told you the first part of the story of three-year-old Arabella Parker, who was rushed to the hospital on October 10, 2019, reportedly suffering from a seizure. Because medical staff wasn't told that the seizure resulted from severe head trauma, the damage was irreparable, and Arabella died on November 22, 2019.In this episode, I'll take you through the hearings and the trials of the three people accused of allowing, causing, or covering up the reason for Arabella's death: her mother, Samantha Delcamp; Samantha's boyfriend, Jahrid Burgess; and Jahrid's mother, Christy Willis.In the next episode, you'll hear my conversations with several people close to Arabella's case.This is part two of the complex, tragic story of Arabella Parker, retold.The Crime Wire article, “Amanda Parker, Samantha Delcamp, and the Domestic Violence Debate”: https://thecrimewire.com/multifarious/woman-who-berated-samantha-delcamp-is-branded-a-hypocrite Beyond Duress: Supporting the Admissibility of Evidence of Battered Woman Syndrome to Aid the Defenses of Battered Mothers Charged with Failing to Protect Their Children Against Their Common Abuser: https://aulawreview.org/blog/beyond-duress-supporting-the-admissibility-of-evidence-of-battered-woman-syndrome/ Photos related to today's episode can be viewed on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sufferthelittlechildrenpod You can also follow the podcast on:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/sufferthelittlechildrenpodTwitter: https://www.twitter.com/STLCpodTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@STLCpodMy Linktree is available here: https://linktr.ee/stlcpod Visit the podcast's web page at https://www.sufferthelittlechildrenpod.com. Please help me devote myself to the podcast full-time to keep the weekly episodes coming! By supporting me on Patreon, you'll also access rewards, including a shout-out by name on the podcast and exclusive rewards. Visit www.patreon.com/STLCpod. You can also support the podcast on www.Ko-Fi.com/STLCpod. Join my Supporters' Club: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/suffer-the-little-children--4232884/support This podcast is researched, written, hosted, edited, and produced by Laine.Music for this episode is licensed from https://audiojungle.net. Subscribe to Suffer the Little Children:Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/suffer-the-little-children/id1499010711Google Podcasts: https://playmusic.app.goo.gl/?ibi=com.google.PlayMusic&isi=691797987&ius=googleplaymusic&apn=com.google.android.music&link=https://play.google.com/music/m/I5mx3lacxpdkhssmk2n22csf32u?t%3DSuffer_the_Little_Children%26pcampaignid%3DMKT-na-all-co-pr-mu-pod-16Spreaker: https://www.spreaker.com/show/suffer-the-little-children Pandora: https://www.pandora.com/podcast/suffer-the-little-children/PC:61848?part=PC:61848&corr=podcast_organic_external_site&TID=Brand:POC:PC61848:podcast_organic_external_siteSpotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0w98Tpd3710BZ0u036T1KEiHeartRadio: https://iheart.com/podcast/77891101/ ...or on your favorite podcast listening platform.

Law and Legitimacy (@LawPodDaily) with Norm Pattis and Michael Boyer is LIVE every weekday at 8:00am eastern. . The state of nature doesn't have to be nasty, poor, solitary, brutish and short. Really. . We—ordinary men and women—are populist by instinct, respect tradition, and are curious about how law shapes our lives and expectations. . In a world wrought with divisions and hatred, Law and Legitimacy has situated itself in a watchtower, keeping an ever-vigilant eye on the horizon. . Join us daily for the sight-lines of the day's most controversial events and trends. Norm Pattis and Michael Boyer offer an honest look at issues that matter to those who care about a good society, the rule of law, and the welfare of ordinary men and women. . Go to LAWPODDAILY.COM and SUBSCRIBE to the LAL Newsletter. . Find LAL: https://linktr.ee/PattisPodcastThe Climate God-Complex, Fanning Fani & Admissibility of Tattoos, Crosswalk Burnouts & Dolezal

Law and Legitimacy (@LawPodDaily) with Norm Pattis and Michael Boyer is LIVE every weekday at 8:00am eastern. . The state of nature doesn't have to be nasty, poor, solitary, brutish and short. Really. . We—ordinary men and women—are populist by instinct, respect tradition, and are curious about how law shapes our lives and expectations. . In a world wrought with divisions and hatred, Law and Legitimacy has situated itself in a watchtower, keeping an ever-vigilant eye on the horizon. . Join us daily for the sight-lines of the day's most controversial events and trends. Norm Pattis and Michael Boyer offer an honest look at issues that matter to those who care about a good society, the rule of law, and the welfare of ordinary men and women. . Go to LAWPODDAILY.COM and SUBSCRIBE to the LAL Newsletter. . Find LAL: https://linktr.ee/PattisPodcastThe Climate God-Complex, Fanning Fani & Admissibility of Tattoos, Crosswalk Burnouts & Dolezal

I. Introduction to Evidence A. Purpose and Importance of Evidence Law. Evidence law serves a foundational role in the legal process, ensuring that trials are conducted fairly and that decisions are based on reliable, relevant information. Its primary purposes are: To Ascertain the Truth: Evidence law helps in uncovering the truth by allowing certain pieces of information to be presented in court while excluding others that are unreliable, irrelevant, or prejudicial. To Ensure Fairness: By providing clear rules for what evidence can be considered, evidence law aims to create a level playing field for all parties in a legal dispute. To Enhance Efficiency: Evidence rules streamline the legal process by preventing the introduction of evidence that would waste time or distract from the main issues of the case. To Protect Rights: Specific rules of evidence are designed to safeguard constitutional and statutory rights, such as the right against self-incrimination and the right to confront witnesses. B. Sources of Evidence Law Evidence law in the United States is primarily derived from two sources: Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE): The FRE governs proceedings in the federal courts and serves as a model for many states. They were enacted to bring uniformity to federal evidence law and are regularly updated to address new legal challenges, including those arising from technological advancements. State Evidence Codes: Each state has its own set of evidence rules, which may closely follow the FRE or diverge based on local legal traditions and needs. State supreme courts and legislatures are responsible for creating and modifying these rules. In addition to these codified rules, common law principles still influence evidence law, especially in areas not fully covered by the FRE or state codes. C. Types of Evidence. Evidence can be classified into several types, each with specific rules governing its use: Direct Evidence: Directly proves a fact without needing inference, such as eyewitness testimony that a person was seen at a crime scene. Circumstantial Evidence: Requires inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. For example, finding a suspect's fingerprints at a crime scene does not directly prove they committed the crime but requires an inference. Real Evidence: Tangible items that are directly involved in the case at hand, such as a weapon used in a crime. Demonstrative Evidence: Evidence created for trial to demonstrate or illustrate a testimony or a fact, such as charts, maps, diagrams, and models. Digital Evidence: Information stored or transmitted in digital form that is relevant to the case. This includes emails, digital photographs, text messages, and information stored on electronic devices. D. Overview of the Admissibility of Evidence The admissibility of evidence is governed by a set of criteria designed to ensure that only relevant, reliable, and fair evidence is presented to the trier of fact (judge or jury). Key considerations include: Relevance: Evidence must be relevant to be admissible, meaning it must make a fact in question more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Reliability: Certain types of evidence must meet specific reliability standards to be admissible, such as scientific evidence, which must be based on scientifically valid principles and methods. Prejudice vs. Probative Value: Even if evidence is relevant, it may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. Hearsay Rule: Hearsay, or statements made outside the courtroom offered for the truth of the matter asserted, is generally inadmissible unless it falls under one of the many exceptions to the hearsay rule. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

The admissibility of accused's confession in Meyiwa trial under the spotlight following the testimony about one of two alleged confessions by accused number two Bongani Ntanzi in the Senzo Meyiwa murder trial. Taking the witness stand at the Pretoria high court on Tuesday, magistrate Vivian Cronje explained what happened on June 24 2020, the day Ntanzi's statement was allegedly taken.

In Admissibility of Financial Crimes Evidence — Part 7, we continue our review of the in-camera hearing over the admissibility of financial crimes evidence in the case with our coverage of the testimonies of Michael Satterfield, whose mother Gloria Satterfield died from a fall while working as the Murdaugh's housekeeper, and Carson Burney, a forensic accountant. Crime Story Media has begun to migrate content from the CrimeStory.com website to our Patreon. For more of Crime Story and Jury Duty — including ad-free episodes of the upcoming season; Kary Antholis's Storyteller Interviews with ground-breaking, award-winning storytellers like David Simon and George Pelecanos; and all of our Amanda Knox Project opinion pieces and interviews— subscribe on Patreon for just $5 per month. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In Admissibility of Financial Crimes Evidence — Part 6B, we continue our look at the admissibility of financial crimes evidence with the conclusion of our coverage of Jan Malinowski's testimony. Malinowski is the CEO of Palmetto State Bank, where multiple irregularities were discovered related to Alex Murdaugh's financial dealings.Crime Story Media has begun to migrate content from the CrimeStory.com website to our Patreon. For more of Crime Story and Jury Duty — including ad-free episodes of the upcoming season; Kary Antholis's Storyteller Interviews with ground-breaking, award-winning storytellers like David Simon and George Pelecanos; and all of our Amanda Knox Project opinion pieces and interviews— subscribe on Patreon for just $5 per month. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In Admissibility of Financial Crimes Evidence — Part 6A, we continue our look at the admissibility of financial crimes evidence with our coverage of the in-camera testimony of Jan Malinowski, the CEO of Palmetto State Bank, where multiple irregularities were discovered related to Alex Murdaugh's financial dealings.Crime Story Media has begun to migrate content from the CrimeStory.com website to our Patreon. For more of Crime Story and Jury Duty — including ad-free episodes of the upcoming season; Kary Antholis's Storyteller Interviews with ground-breaking, award-winning storytellers like David Simon and George Pelecanos; and all of our Amanda Knox Project opinion pieces and interviews— subscribe on Patreon for just $5 per month. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In Admissibility of Financial Crimes Evidence — Part 5, we review further arguments between Prosecutor Creighton Waters and Defense Attorney Jim Griffin as Judge Clifton Newman weighs the admissibility of financial crimes evidence in this trial.Crime Story Media has begun to migrate content from the CrimeStory.com website to our Patreon. For more of Crime Story and Jury Duty — including ad-free episodes of the upcoming season; Kary Antholis's Storyteller Interviews with ground-breaking, award-winning storytellers like David Simon and George Pelecanos; and all of our Amanda Knox Project opinion pieces and interviews— subscribe on Patreon for just $5 per month. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In Admissibility of Financial Crimes Evidence — Part 4B, we continue our look at the in-camera hearing over the admissibility of evidence regarding the defendant's financial crimes with the final part of our review of the testimony of Chris Wilson, a fellow lawyer and close friend of Alex Murdaugh's.Crime Story Media has begun to migrate content from the CrimeStory.com website to our Patreon. For more of Crime Story and Jury Duty — including ad-free episodes of the upcoming season; Kary Antholis's Storyteller Interviews with ground-breaking, award-winning storytellers like David Simon and George Pelecanos; and all of our Amanda Knox Project opinion pieces and interviews— subscribe on Patreon for just $5 per month. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In Admissibility of Financial Crimes Evidence — Part 4A, we continue our look at the in-camera hearing over the admissibility of evidence regarding the defendant's financial crimes with the first part of our review of the testimony of Chris Wilson, a fellow lawyer and close friend of Alex Murdaugh's.Crime Story Media has begun to migrate content from the CrimeStory.com website to our Patreon. For more of Crime Story and Jury Duty — including ad-free episodes of the upcoming season; Kary Antholis's Storyteller Interviews with ground-breaking, award-winning storytellers like David Simon and George Pelecanos; and all of our Amanda Knox Project opinion pieces and interviews— subscribe on Patreon for just $5 per month. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In SLED Agent Testimony and Admissibility of Financial Crimes Evidence — Part 3, we review the testimony of SLED Senior Special Agent Katie McCallister, and then continue our look at the in-camera hearing over the admissibility of testimony regarding the defendant's financial crimes.Crime Story Media has begun to migrate content from the CrimeStory.com website to our Patreon. For more of Crime Story and Jury Duty — including ad-free episodes of the upcoming season; Kary Antholis's Storyteller Interviews with ground-breaking, award-winning storytellers like David Simon and George Pelecanos; and all of our Amanda Knox Project opinion pieces and interviews— subscribe on Patreon for just $5 per month. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In Admissibility of Financial Crimes Evidence — Part 2D, we continue our review of the financial crimes evidence debate with the in-camera cross examination of Jeanie Seckinger by the defense.Crime Story Media has begun to migrate content from the CrimeStory.com website to our Patreon. For more of Crime Story and Jury Duty — including ad-free episodes of the upcoming season; Kary Antholis's Storyteller Interviews with ground-breaking, award-winning storytellers like David Simon and George Pelecanos; and all of our Amanda Knox Project opinion pieces and interviews— subscribe on Patreon for just $5 per month. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In Admissibility of Financial Crimes Evidence — Part 2C, we continue our review of the financial crimes evidence debate with the final part of our look at the in-camera direct examination of Jeanie Seckinger, who details allegations of over $7 million in financial theft by the defendant from his firm and his clients.Crime Story Media has begun to migrate content from the CrimeStory.com website to our Patreon. For more of Crime Story and Jury Duty — including ad-free episodes of the upcoming season; Kary Antholis's Storyteller Interviews with ground-breaking, award-winning storytellers like David Simon and George Pelecanos; and all of our Amanda Knox Project opinion pieces and interviews— subscribe on Patreon for just $5 per month. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In Admissibility of Financial Crimes Evidence — Part 2B, we continue our review of the financial crimes evidence debate with the second part of our look at the in-camera testimony of Jeanie Seckinger, one of the defendant's former coworkers who confronted the defendant with evidence of his financial crimes leading to his resignation from his law firm.Crime Story Media has begun to migrate content from the CrimeStory.com website to our Patreon. For more of Crime Story and Jury Duty — including ad-free episodes of the upcoming season; Kary Antholis's Storyteller Interviews with ground-breaking, award-winning storytellers like David Simon and George Pelecanos; and all of our Amanda Knox Project opinion pieces and interviews— subscribe on Patreon for just $5 per month. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In Admissibility of Financial Crimes Evidence — Part 2A, we continue our review of the financial crimes evidence debate with the beginning of our look at the in-camera testimony of Jeanie Seckinger, one of the defendant's former coworkers who discovered the evidence of his financial crimes that led to his resignation from his law firm.Crime Story Media has begun to migrate content from the CrimeStory.com website to our Patreon. For more of Crime Story and Jury Duty — including ad-free episodes of the upcoming season; Kary Antholis's Storyteller Interviews with ground-breaking, award-winning storytellers like David Simon and George Pelecanos; and all of our Amanda Knox Project opinion pieces and interviews— subscribe on Patreon for just $5 per month. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome back to our Evidence Law class! In this session, we will explore the crucial concepts of relevance and admissibility in depth. These principles are essential for determining which evidence can be presented in court. By the end of this session, you will have a solid understanding of how these criteria shape the admissibility of evidence. Today Topics to be Covered: 1. Relevance of Evidence: - Defining relevance: Evidence must have a logical connection to the facts at issue in the case. - Standard for determining relevance: Whether the evidence makes the existence of a fact more or less probable. 2. Exclusion of Irrelevant Evidence: - Ensuring efficiency and focus in legal proceedings by excluding evidence that is not pertinent to the case. - Balancing probative value against potential for confusion or waste of time. 3. Admissibility Criteria: - Hearsay rule: Understanding the general prohibition on secondhand statements, with exceptions. - Character evidence: Exploring limitations on using a person's character to infer their behavior. - Opinion evidence: Differentiating between lay opinions and expert opinions. 4. Balancing Test: - Weighing probative value against potential prejudicial impact to determine admissibility. Here are some Examples and Case Studies: 1. Relevance in a Murder Trial: Imagine a murder trial where the defendant claims self-defense. Relevance becomes a key consideration: - Relevant evidence: The victim's prior violent behavior to establish the reasonableness of the defendant's fear. - Irrelevant evidence: The defendant's favorite color, which has no bearing on the case. 2. Hearsay Exception in a Contract Dispute: Consider a contract dispute where a party seeks to admit a statement made by a deceased contract partner: - Exception to the hearsay rule: The statement may be admissible if it falls under the "Dying Declaration" exception. Now for some Questions: 1. Relevance vs. Admissibility: Differentiate between relevance and admissibility in the context of evidence. Answer: Relevance pertains to whether evidence logically connects to the facts at issue, while admissibility concerns whether evidence meets specific legal criteria to be presented in court. 2. Hearsay Exception: Question. Can you provide an example of a situation where the hearsay rule might not apply? Answer: One such exception is the "Excited Utterance" exception, where a statement made under the influence of a startling event may be admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. Join me next week for Session 3. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

In Admissibility of Financial Crimes Evidence — Part 1, we begin our look at the debate between the parties over the admissibility of testimony about the defendant's alleged financial crimes as evidence of the his possible motives for the murders of his wife and son. We also look at the testimony of Heidi Galore, an operations lead from Snapchat who retrieved data for the investigation.Crime Story Media has begun to migrate content from the CrimeStory.com website to our Patreon. For more of Crime Story and Jury Duty — including ad-free episodes of the upcoming season; Kary Antholis's Storyteller Interviews with ground-breaking, award-winning storytellers like David Simon and George Pelecanos; and all of our Amanda Knox Project opinion pieces and interviews— subscribe on Patreon for just $5 per month. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Si and Desi talk to Ryan Parthemore, Product Evangelist at Cellebrite, and Robert Fried, Senior Vice President and Global Head of Forensics Investigations at Sandline Solutions. They discuss best practices and compliance frameworks to ensure the admissibility of digital evidence at trial. They highlight the foundational principles of repeatability, reproducibility, and justifiability in the field of digital forensics. Drawing on their own real-life experiences, they emphasize the importance of defensible investigations and illustrate how proper methodologies can protect the chain of custody and ensure the reliability of the digital evidence.

(PUBLICATION BAN) The respondent was convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference, two offences perpetrated on the complainant when she was between six and eight years old. The convictions were based on the complainant's unsworn, videotaped police statement, which the trial judge admitted into evidence by application of the principled exception to the hearsay rule, based on the requirements of necessity and threshold reliability. A majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the respondent's appeal, set aside the conviction and entered an acquittal, concluding that the trial judge erred in law by admitting the out-of-court statement into evidence. MacPherson J.A., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal from conviction. Argued Date 2023-01-10 Keywords Criminal law - Evidence, Admissibility, Hearsay - Criminal law – Evidence – Admissibility – Hearsay – Videotaped out-of-court statement given by complainant – Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in law in finding that the trial judge erred in admitting the complainant's out-of-court statement by (i) finding that the statement met the requirements of threshold reliability; and (ii) finding that the complainant had no motive to fabricate the allegations. Notes (Ontario) (Criminal) (As of Right) (Publication ban in case) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

In August 2022, the State of California restricted the use of rap lyrics by prosecutors in criminal trials by passing a Bill which now requires judicial review of rap lyrics prior to admittance.  This new Bill across the border offers an opportunity to assess the admissibility of rap lyrics in Canadian criminal trials. This is not a podcast that is aimed to make you like rap music. This podcast is not trying to claim that all rappers who are charged with criminal offences are innocent. This podcast is concerned with something much more simple; the denial of justice. Our esteemed Read More ...

It's Manic Monday!  Norm and Mike are back in the saddle as another week of court in the United States v. Joseph Biggs, et al. cranks up. With the jury excused from court for the day, the parties are scheduled to make arguments as to the admissibility of certain text communications between and among the defendants.  So? Norm starts with some foundational building blocks for what is "admissible" as evidence in a criminal trial. Through the lens of the Murdaugh trial ongoing, Norm gives #LALiens a window into how the federal rules of evidence treat various types of evidence, particularly evidence of a defendant's propensity, to illustrate the often elusive legal concept.  The two also discuss: › The latest in the Chinese Spy Balloon story—what is the big deal? › ChatGPT fails the Trolley Problem—Bigly! Join us.  Daily livestreams beginning at 7:45am EST on Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/LawandLegitimacy. Subscribe and enable notifications! Support Law and Legitimacy: - Locals: https://lawandlegitimacy.locals.com/ - Twitter: @PattisPodcast, @PattisNorm, and @MichaelBoyer_ Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Audible, Spotify, or wherever you receive podcasts and rate LAL 5 stars. Subscribe here on our Rumble channel, give us a Rumble, and join our active community of free-thinkers, contrarians, and the unafraid on Locals!

It's Manic Monday!  Norm and Mike are back in the saddle as another week of court in the United States v. Joseph Biggs, et al. cranks up. With the jury excused from court for the day, the parties are scheduled to make arguments as to the admissibility of certain text communications between and among the defendants.  So? Norm starts with some foundational building blocks for what is "admissible" as evidence in a criminal trial. Through the lens of the Murdaugh trial ongoing, Norm gives #LALiens a window into how the federal rules of evidence treat various types of evidence, particularly evidence of a defendant's propensity, to illustrate the often elusive legal concept.  The two also discuss: › The latest in the Chinese Spy Balloon story—what is the big deal? › ChatGPT fails the Trolley Problem—Bigly! Join us.  Daily livestreams beginning at 7:45am EST on Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/LawandLegitimacy. Subscribe and enable notifications! Support Law and Legitimacy: - Locals: https://lawandlegitimacy.locals.com/ - Twitter: @PattisPodcast, @PattisNorm, and @MichaelBoyer_ Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Audible, Spotify, or wherever you receive podcasts and rate LAL 5 stars. Subscribe here on our Rumble channel, give us a Rumble, and join our active community of free-thinkers, contrarians, and the unafraid on Locals!

Claims admissibility chapter 19

On this week's episode, Kyla Lee and Paul Doroshenko examine a case where several Covid-19 regulation violation tickets were dismissed. Later on, Kyla and Paul discuss the requirements for the admissibility of radar evidence in traffic court. Finally, the commencement of Counter Attack season... AND – The Ridiculous Driver of the Week! Follow Kyla Lee on Twitter: twitter.com/IRPlawyer Follow Kyla Lee on Instagram: instagram.com/kylaleelawyer www.vancouvercriminallaw.com

The respondent, David Edward Furey, was convicted of breaking and entering into a dwelling, assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, possession of a knife for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, and breach of an undertaking. At trial, the judge admitted, for the truth of its contents, a videotaped out of court statement given by one of the complainants, who subsequently died of unrelated causes. The statement was given to the police soon after the altercations. A majority of the Court of Appeal allowed Mr. Furey's appeal from convictions, set aside the decision of the trial judge, including the voir dire decision regarding the admissibility of the complainant's out-of-court statement, and ordered a new trial. The majority concluded that the trial judge applied an erroneous statement of the law — that where there is greater necessity, less reliability is acceptable. As a result of her reliance on this statement, the trial judge erred in admitting the complainant's out of court statement for the truth of its contents: she permitted the admissibility of the hearsay evidence without requiring that the requisite degree of reliability be established. In dissent, Knickle J.A. would have dismissed the appeal. In her view, the trial judge committed no error in her application of the principled approach to the hearsay evidence, as she engaged in the skeptical and cautious analysis that was required before admitting the statement, including that the two criteria of necessity and reliability must be assessed in tandem and with flexibility. Argued Date 2022-12-02 Keywords Criminal law - Evidence, Admissibility, Hearsay - Criminal law — Evidence — Admissibility — Hearsay — Videotaped out of court statement given by complainant who died before trial — Whether the majority of the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal erred in law in allowing the appeal, setting aside the convictions and ordering a new trial because the trial judge failed to apply the correct legal principles in assessing the “threshold” admissibility of an out of court statement. Notes (Newfoundland & Labrador) (Criminal) (As of Right) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

David Dustin is currently the Technical Director for FARO Public Safety and works very closely with FARO's R&D groups in the areas of software and hardware development. Since the integration of 3D Laser scanning, David has gone on to become a recognized expert in the areas of 3D Laser scanning for crime scenes, as well as in the investigation of vehicular related events working numerous high profile cases across the US. He has testified at trials on the use of 3D evidence and has been involved in 2 Daubert Challenges. Join us as David speaks to us about admissibility and working with 3D evidence.Originally aired on April 14, 2022

Today on The Dominic Enyart Show, we're discussing both how the government can dismantle the crime epidemic and how we can do our part as Christians to reduce crime. The things the government should do include: -Bringing back a swift and painful death penalty. -Abolish abortion. -Abolish no-fault divorce. -Abolish pornography. -Abolish public schools. -Re-criminalize homosexuality. Things the church should do include: -Oppose evolution. -Fight sexual immorality. -Fight abortion. -Get out of the “don't judge” mentality. -Homeschool your kids and warn other parents about the dangers of public school. And then (saving the best for last) -Preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and bring as many to Him as possible. For more information, see How the Church Should Respond to the Crime Epidemic and KGOV's List of Gay Mass Murderers Mondays Bob Enyart Live (Broadcast Classics) Tuesdays The Dominic Enyart Show Wednesdays The Dominic Enyart Show Thursdays Theology Thursday (with Bob Enyart) Fridays Real Science Radio (with Fred Williams) Follow us on Twitter and Instagram! Today's resource: God's Criminal Justice System: Does the Bible support the death penalty before the crucifixion? How about after the crucifixion? The death penalty forms the centerpiece of the Gospel. The first and last books of the Bible deal with execution, as do the Old and New Testaments generally. Enjoy this presentation of God's ideas about criminal justice. Many Christians pray for an open door to share the Gospel with a friend. That door opens with almost every newscast and social media headline, for those who benefit from God's Criminal Justice System. Learn about: • The Bible's list of capital crimes. • Altered and repealed criminal laws. • Bible prescription for property crimes. • Bible teaching on corporal punishment. • Presumption of innocence. • Judge selection and appeals. • Admissibility of evidence. • Perjury and contempt of court. • Attempted crime. • Correcting modern law principles • Incarceration. • Unintentional and justifiable homicide. • Civil disobedience and more...     And learn also that: • Jesus supports the death penalty. • Revelation supports the death penalty. • Paul supports the death penalty. • Acts supports the death penalty. • Hebrews supports the death penalty. • Christians should support the death penalty. And learn how to biblically answer those who claim that: • Jesus repealed an-eye-for-an-eye punishment. • Christians must forgive the murderer. • Christians should not judge. • Christians should not repay evil for evil. • Only those without sin can enforce a death penalty. • Thou shall not kill.

In light of the current pandemic of violence, we're going back to a sermon from the late, great Pastor Bob Enyart of Denver Bible Church. “The Bible is a Criminal Justice Textbook.” Now more than ever, Christians must be extremely familiar with the arguments for Biblical justice. As Peter says, you must always be ready to give an answer. Mondays Bob Enyart Live (Broadcast Classics) Tuesdays The Dominic Enyart Show Wednesdays The Dominic Enyart Show Thursdays Theology Thursday (with Bob Enyart) Fridays Real Science Radio (with Fred Williams) Follow us on Twitter and Instagram! Today's resource: God's Criminal Justice System: Does the Bible support the death penalty before the crucifixion? How about after the crucifixion? The death penalty forms the centerpiece of the Gospel. The first and last books of the Bible deal with execution, as do the Old and New Testaments generally. Enjoy this presentation of God's ideas about criminal justice. Many Christians pray for an open door to share the Gospel with a friend. That door opens with almost every newscast and social media headline, for those who benefit from God's Criminal Justice System. Learn about: • The Bible's list of capital crimes. • Altered and repealed criminal laws. • Bible prescription for property crimes. • Bible teaching on corporal punishment. • Presumption of innocence. • Judge selection and appeals. • Admissibility of evidence. • Perjury and contempt of court. • Attempted crime. • Correcting modern law principles • Incarceration. • Unintentional and justifiable homicide. • Civil disobedience and more...     And learn also that: • Jesus supports the death penalty. • Revelation supports the death penalty. • Paul supports the death penalty. • Acts supports the death penalty. • Hebrews supports the death penalty. • Christians should support the death penalty. And learn how to biblically answer those who claim that: • Jesus repealed an-eye-for-an-eye punishment. • Christians must forgive the murderer. • Christians should not judge. • Christians should not repay evil for evil. • Only those without sin can enforce a death penalty. • Thou shall not kill.

Today on The Dominic Enyart Show we're taking a deep dive into two topics briefly mentioned last week. 1- The age of accountability. Should we read the Bible like lawyers and try to understand salvation as if it's a contract? Or should we read the Bible as if God is personal, relational, and reasonable? 2- Why is God allowed to kill people after saying explicitly, “you shall not murder”? Question for you! What length of show do you guys prefer? Typically we do about half an hour (though sometimes we go a little long). Would you, the brightest audience in the country, want shorter or longer shows? Let Dominic know by sending him an email, at “dominicenyart@gmail.com”. Today's resource: God's Criminal Justice System: Does the Bible support the death penalty before the crucifixion? How about after the crucifixion? The death penalty forms the centerpiece of the Gospel. The first and last books of the Bible deal with execution, as do the Old and New Testaments generally. Enjoy this presentation of God's ideas about criminal justice. Many Christians pray for an open door to share the Gospel with a friend. That door opens with almost every newscast and social media headline, for those who benefit from God's Criminal Justice System. Learn about: • The Bible's list of capital crimes. • Altered and repealed criminal laws. • Bible prescription for property crimes. • Bible teaching on corporal punishment. • Presumption of innocence. • Judge selection and appeals. • Admissibility of evidence. • Perjury and contempt of court. • Attempted crime. • Correcting modern law principles • Incarceration. • Unintentional and justifiable homicide. • Civil disobedience and more...   And learn also that: • Jesus supports the death penalty. • Revelation supports the death penalty. • Paul supports the death penalty. • Acts supports the death penalty. • Hebrews supports the death penalty. • Christians should support the death penalty. And learn how to biblically answer those who claim that: • Jesus repealed an-eye-for-an-eye punishment. • Christians must forgive the murderer. • Christians should not judge. • Christians should not repay evil for evil. • Only those without sin can enforce a death penalty. • Thou shall not kill.

Today on The Dominic Enyart Show… Dominic gives a brief recap of the abortion fundraiser protest. The gala featured an insane man swinging a bat breaking car windows, a confrontation with state representative David Ortiz, and street preacher Jesse Morrell. Also the question was brought up, “why should we focus on theology when abortion and perversion go unchecked in America?” Dominic answers. Finally, we get into the age of accountability and answer the objection atheists make, that “God is immoral because He kills people.” All of that and more! Today's resource: God's Criminal Justice System: Does the Bible support the death penalty before the crucifixion? How about after the crucifixion? The death penalty forms the centerpiece of the Gospel. The first and last books of the Bible deal with execution, as do the Old and New Testaments generally. Enjoy this presentation of God's ideas about criminal justice. Many Christians pray for an open door to share the Gospel with a friend. That door opens with almost every newscast and social media headline, for those who benefit from God's Criminal Justice System. Learn about: • The Bible's list of capital crimes. • Altered and repealed criminal laws. • Bible prescription for property crimes. • Bible teaching on corporal punishment. • Presumption of innocence. • Judge selection and appeals. • Admissibility of evidence. • Perjury and contempt of court. • Attempted crime. • Correcting modern law principles • Incarceration. • Unintentional and justifiable homicide. • Civil disobedience and more...   And learn also that: • Jesus supports the death penalty. • Revelation supports the death penalty. • Paul supports the death penalty. • Acts supports the death penalty. • Hebrews supports the death penalty. • Christians should support the death penalty. And learn how to biblically answer those who claim that: • Jesus repealed an-eye-for-an-eye punishment. • Christians must forgive the murderer. • Christians should not judge. • Christians should not repay evil for evil. • Only those without sin can enforce a death penalty. • Thou shall not kill.

Dr. Lance Eliot explains the evidentiary admissibility of AI Machine Learning. See his website www.ai-law.legal for further information.

Guests: Josh Shilts, CPA/ABV/CFF/CGMA  Ken Rugeti, CPA, ABV, CFF Reasonable Certainty is a legal definition that sets the standard by which courts hold estimates of damages claimed in a lawsuit.  When a party in a legal action claims damages, experts are retained to provide a damages analysis that will be scrutinized under this threshold. Josh and guest Ken Rugeti discuss: General damages Consequential damages Examples of these concepts from real-life cases The podcast will also discuss some important issues to consider such as: How and when to apply reasonable assumptions in your analysis Admissibility vs. cross examination How to use management projections The episode is brought to you by the AICPA's Forensic and Valuation Services Section, the premier provider of information, tools, advocacy and guidance for professionals who specialize in providing forensics, valuation, fraud, fair value and damages and by the CFF Credential and ABV Credential programs which allow AICPA members to demonstrate competence and confidence in providing these services to their clients. Visit us online at www.aicpa.org/fvs to join our community and gain access to valuable member-only benefits. Don't miss an episode – subscribe to our podcast channel! And leave us a review so we can continue bringing valuable and relevant content to you.

We look at the 4th Amendment. What does the right to privacy mean, and what rights do we have as American citizens to protection from an unreasonable search and seizure? What is the difference between “reasonable” and “unreasonable?” What rights do government actors have, both with and without a warrant? Moreover, how are we to understand what is admissible and what isn't in a court of law?

Listen in to the LEC's Judicial Symposium on Scientific Methodology and the Admissibility of Expert Testimony to hear an insightful panel discussion on "The Challenge of Recognizing Good Science in the Courtroom" featuring:  David E. Bernstein, University Professor and Executive Director, Liberty and Law Center, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School Edward Casmere, Partner, Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP Jeffrey S. Parker, Professor of Law (Retired), George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School Thomas Sheehan, Partner, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP Moderator: Erin O'Hara O'Connor, Dean and McKenzie Professor of Law, Florida State University College of Law To watch a full video recording of the panel discussion, click here.   

Support the Show:https://www.patreon.com/preacherboys Purchase a Preacher Boys shirt, mask, sticker, or other merch to rep the show! https://www.teepublic.com/user/preacher-boys-podcast_______________________________________________________Purchase a copy of The Child Safeguarding Policy Guide here: https://amzn.to/3dp2Qdu​_______________________________________________________Contact Boz Tchividjian: https://www.landispa.com/attorneys/boz-tchividjian/386-734-3451boz@landispa.com_______________________________________________________An experienced litigator who has handled hundreds of civil and criminal cases, Boz Tchividjian has dedicated his career to empowering survivors of sexual abuse, sexual assault, and sexual harassment to seek justice against perpetrators, as well as employers and other institutions who fail to protect people from abuse. Prior to joining the firm as a civil litigator in 2001, Boz served as an Assistant State Attorney in the 7th Judicial Circuit of Florida, where he created the first Sex Crimes Division at the Office of the State Attorney and served as Division Chief. In that position, Boz personally prosecuted hundreds of sexual victimization cases and supervised the prosecution of thousands more.Boz is the Founder of GRACE, an internationally recognized nonprofit organization that equips religious organizations with the tools they need to correctly respond to allegations of sexual abuse and educates them on how to create safeguards to protect children in their communities. As a renowned expert on sexual abuse, particularly within faith communities, Boz has been widely quoted in media outlets such as The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Huffington Post, and NBC Nightly News.Boz is the co-author of  The Child Safeguarding Policy Guide, a handbook for religious institutions looking to improve their child protection policies. He has also published scholarly articles such as, “Predators and Propensity: The Proper Approach for Determining the Admissibility of Prior Bad Acts Evidence in Child Sexual Abuse Prosecutions” (American Journal of Criminal Law) and “Catching American Sex Offenders Overseas: A Proposal for a Federal Mandated Reporting Law” (UMKC Law Review). Boz also wrote a weekly column for the Religious News Service.Boz also served as a professor at Liberty University School of Law where he taught employment law, criminal law and procedure, and child abuse law. Boz currently serves as an adjunct professor at Stetson University where he teaches employment law and other business law-related courses.Boz is Of Counsel with the firm and represents abuse victims from around the country.Areas of Practice:Sexual AbuseChild sexual abuseAdult sexual assaultWorkplace sexual harassment and discriminationAll other forms of discrimination and harassment in the workplaceGeneral employment lawPersonal injuryEducation:Samford University Cumberland School of Law, JDStetson University, BABar Admissions:State of Florida, 1993_______________________________________________________Find more stories regarding the IFB movement by visiting:preacherboysdoc.comhttps://www.facebook.com/preacherboysdochttps://twitter.com/preacherboysdochttps://www.instagram.com/preacherboysdoc/To connect with a community who share the Preacher Boys Podcast mission to expose abuse in the IFB, join the OFFICIAL Preacher Boys Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1403898676438188/Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/preacher-boys-podcast/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Dan Schorr and Alyssa-Rae McGinn discuss whether respondent confessions are admissible at Title IX hearings under the new regulations if the respondent doesn't submit to cross-examination (Episode 3)

Retired Judge Ronald J. Hedges discusses the decision-making process on preparing for a trial including evidence, witness testimony, and investigating prospective jurors.