I attended the legal seminar “Evidence to Win” presented by New York State Trial Lawyers Institute. The speakers were Robert Genes, Nicolas Timko, Larry Simon, Andrew Finklestein, and Martin Edelmen. It is no mystery why these rock stars routinely secure huge verdicts and settlements. They are dedicated to the craft in all respects, especially when
D, a lawyer, was sued by P for malpractice for giving bad advice at a legal seminar. The advice at issue related to eligibility requirements of S-corporation shareholders. To prove that D provided the bad advice, P calls W, a different seminar attendee, to testify about the advice given. Despite P’s efforts to refresh W’s
D is being prosecuted for 1) being a felon in possession of a firearm, and 2) assault with a deadly weapon. Prior to trial, D offers to stipulate that he is a “felon” as defined by the applicable statute. In return, he requests that the prosecutor promise not to offer evidence that D’s prior felony
Plaintiff sues Defendant, an owner of a newspaper, for libel after releasing an article that accused Plaintiff of committing a string of robberies on New York City’s Upper East Side. To prove that Plaintiff committed those robberies, Defendant offers evidence that Plaintiff had been convicted of other robberies that took place in New Jersey within
In our last blog, we saw some basic definitions of relevance. Relevant evidence is evidence that tends to prove or disprove a material fact in the case. For this problem, we revisit the relevance of “character” evidence. In evidence law, “character” is essentially the makeup of a individual’s personality traits, usually with a focus
P sues D for defamation. To prove that the defamatory statement was made, P calls W1 who testifies that he was in a group of P’s business colleagues when D told the group that P was a “con man.” During its case-in-chief, D walls W2, W1’s wife, to testify that W1 suffers from frequent delusions.
Prosecution of D for stealing a construction crane from a work site at 2 p.m. on a Tuesday afternoon. D’s alibi is that he was inside Barnes & Noble browsing for books from 1:30 to 2:30 that afternoon. As part of its case in chief, the prosecution calls W, a manager of a pet store
Prosecution of D for auto theft. D testifies that he was at a music concert in another town when the crime was committed. To impeach D, the prosecution gives notice that it wishes to offer evidence of D’s 13 year-old conviction for a filing of a false tax return, a misdemeanor. The prosecution also supplies
