Hearsay Is Not An Issue On This Examination Part 1 Defendant ✓ Solved

Hearsay Is Not An Issue On This Examinationpart 1defendant Dave Has B

Identify, explain, and analyze the relevant legal issues, objections, and rulings related to the evidence and judicial notice in the criminal case against Dave, as well as the appropriateness of the jury instruction regarding notice of breach in the civil case. Address the types of objections that could be raised to each piece of evidence, how the judge should rule, and discuss whether the jury instruction accurately reflects the legal principles involved, including the rules governing hearsay, authentication, judicial notice, and notice via mail.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Part 1: Evidence Objections and Judicial Notice

In the criminal case against Dave, the prosecution seeks to introduce certain evidence that is subject to legal scrutiny and potential objections. The first piece of evidence involves Walt’s testimony that the bottles of drugs stolen from the store were labeled "OPD," received from the supplier, and had not been opened. The second involves Dr. Buzz’s testimony that, based on a comparison of impressions of Dave’s teeth and a cast of a candy bar left by the thief, the bite marks were made by Dave’s teeth. Additionally, the prosecution motions that the court take judicial notice that "OPD" is a derivative of opium, tying it to the statutory definition of a dangerous drug.

Objection to Evidence (1):

The first piece of evidence—Walt’s testimony about the labeling of the stolen bottles—primarily concerns the authentication and relevance of the evidence. An objection could be made on the grounds of lack of authentication, arguing that Walt cannot positively identify these bottles as the ones stolen or that they are connected to the case. Opponents might say that Walt’s testimony is insufficient to authenticate the bottles, especially without direct evidence linking the labels to the defendant or the specific theft.

However, under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) Rule 901, the authenticity of business records or labels can be established through testimony that the items are what they are claimed to be, often accepted when a witness with knowledge testifies to the identification. Since Walt is the store owner and presumably familiar with the labels, the court would likely find sufficient basis to admit this evidence, provided Walt testifies to the authenticity of the bottles and labels. Furthermore, the fact that the bottles had not been opened is relevant to establishing possession and intent, which are key elements in larceny under the criminal law.

Objection to Evidence (2):

The second piece involves Dr. Buzz’s expert testimony that the bite in the candy bar was made by Dave’s teeth. An objection might be made based on the qualifications of the expert, the scientific reliability of bite mark comparison, or chain of evidence issues. The defense could argue that bite mark comparison is unreliable or that the evidence has not been properly tested or validated, citing studies that question the validity of bite mark evidence.

Nonetheless, under FRE Rule 702 and Daubert standards, expert testimony must be based on scientifically valid principles and methodologies. If Dr. Buzz can establish that the comparison was conducted according to accepted forensic standards, the court should admit the evidence. The judge’s role is to ensure the scientific reliability of the methods employed, and in appropriate cases, expert testimony linking bite marks to a suspect can be admitted if it meets the criteria.

Judicial Notice Motion:

The prosecution’s motion for judicial notice that "OPD" is a derivative of opium is based on a pharmacological dictionary. Under FRE Rule 201, a court can take judicial notice of facts that are not subject to reasonable dispute because they are generally known within the court’s jurisdiction or can be accurately determined from reliable sources.

The court should grant the motion if it finds that the fact—"OPD" being a derivative of opium—is generally known or can be readily verified from authoritative sources. Since the prosecution supports this with a standard pharmacological dictionary, the court is likely to accept the fact as true and take judicial notice accordingly. Doing so will help the jury, but judicial notice is ultimately a legal conclusion, and the court should ensure that the fact is proper for judicial notice before instructing the jury accordingly.

Part 2: Civil Notice Instruction and Its Appropriateness

In the civil breach of contract case, the plaintiff seeks to establish that the defendant received notice of the breach via mailing a letter. The plaintiff testified that he wrote and mailed the letter from the post office, implying proper mailing. The defendant’s testimony that the plaintiff is partially illiterate raises an issue about whether the letter was properly addressed, stamped, and mailed, and whether the defendant actually received it.

The jury instruction proposed by the plaintiff states that if they believe the letter was mailed with correct postage and address, they must find that the defendant received it. The crucial question is whether this instruction correctly states the law regarding mailing and receipt of notices, especially considering the evidence of the plaintiff’s partial illiteracy.

Under the mailbox rule, a properly mailed letter is generally presumed to be received by the addressee, provided the mailing is proven, and the letter was properly addressed and affixed with correct postage. However, the presumption can be challenged if there is evidence showing that the mail was sent improperly, lost, or not received. In this case, the plaintiff’s testimony that he personally addressed, stamped, and mailed the letter from the post office supports the presumption of proper mailing and, consequently, receipt.

The issue of the plaintiff’s illiteracy does not directly negate the presumption; it relates more to the issue of whether the mailing was properly done. Since the plaintiff can testify to mailing the letter with correct postage and address, the instruction is appropriate under the law’s presumption of mailing and receipt when proper procedures are followed. Further, courts consistently hold that mailing a letter with proper postage creates a prima facie case of notice, which shifts the burden to the defendant to prove non-receipt. Therefore, the instruction’s language aligns with established principles and is appropriate for guiding the jury.

Legal Analysis and Recommendations

In summary, the objections to Walt’s testimony regarding the labels can be overcome by establishing proper authentication, and the court should admit this evidence. Dr. Buzz’s bite mark analysis, subject to scientific reliability criteria, can be admitted if properly conducted, provided that the expert’s methodology is sufficiently validated. The judicial notice about "OPD" as an opium derivative aligns with legal standards because it relies on a reputable authority, and the court should take notice if the fact is generally known or easily verified.

Regarding the civil notice issue, the proposed jury instruction is consistent with the law regarding mailing and presumption of receipt, assuming proper mailing procedures are established. The evidence of mailing with correct postage and address effectively creates a presumption that the defendant received notice, which the jury can rely upon in reaching its verdict.

Thus, both evidentiary rulings and the jury instruction, given adherence to statutory and procedural standards, should be upheld to ensure that justice is served and the evidence appropriately considered.

References

• Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 901: Authentication of Evidence.
• Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702: Testimony by Expert Witnesses.
• Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993): Standards for scientific evidence admissibility.
• Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201: Judicial Notice of adjudicative facts.
• McCormick on Evidence, 8th Edition (2020): Rules of Evidence and Objections.
• Wolters Kluwer, Evidence: A Concise Course, 3rd Edition (2021).
• Goldberg, Evidence Law: Rules, Policies, and Decisions, 4th Edition (2019).
• Larson, Civil Procedure: Principles & Practice, 3rd Edition (2018).
• Restatement (Second) of Torts (1977): General Principles of Notice and Mail.
• Federal Jurisdiction and Procedure, 2017 Edition: Proof and Presumption of Mailing.