Rule 703 of the Federal Rules of Evidence was not intended to abolish the hearsay rule and to allow a witness, under the guise of giving expert testimony, to in effect become the mouthpiece of the witness on whose statements or opinions the expert purports to base his opinion.
When is a photograph more disturbing than useful, particularly in an emotionally-charged trial such as a homicide case (and, more particularly, in a homicide trial where the victim is a young child)? At once a seemingly narrow inquiry, how this question is answered resonates in all sorts of cases, particularly criminal and personal injury, where a photograph or video showing severe injuries is offered as evidence. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court debated this in Commonwealth v. Woodard, 2015 Pa. LEXIS 2786 (decided December 3, 2015). The views of both the majority and dissent warrant discussion, as they frame the issue radically differently and in so doing invite further and science-informed litigation on this issue. Woodard was accused of killing the two-year-old child of his one-time paramour when the child was left in his custody. The injuries were “blunt trauma,” i.e., injuries caused by blows from a fist or other hard object. “Following a hearing where expert medical testimony was presented, the trial court granted the Commonwealth’s motion and ruled that thirteen autopsy photos (twelve color and …
Prosecutors cross-examine much less frequently than do defense counsel, for good reason. Often defendants do not testify (with some data sets putting the number below the 50% threshold for felony cases that go to trial), whether because they have little too say, there is ample impeachment evidence the jury will not hear if they remain silent, or their educational and developmental limitations make them poor candidates for taking the witness stand. And the proportion of defendants who do testify may vary region to region and crime to crime. All of these factors make cross of a criminal accused a less practiced art. Just as fundamental skills may become rusty with limited use, knowledge of controlling principles of law may also erode or become lost entirely when the cross of a defendant is a relative rarity. And there is enough developed law to warn prosecutors away from potential pitfalls, areas of cross-examination that can end in a mis-trial or reversal on appeal. “Are you calling the police witnesses liars?” In the heat of battle and the …
The words “I object” should be passe. The availability of pre-trial motions in limine, as guaranteed by FRE 103, should ensure that evidentiary issues are thoughtfully considered and resolved before trial begins. But time constraints or unexpected developments may require a time-of-trial challenge to the admission of evidence, so knowing the “why” and “how” of objecting is essential. And, as is developed below, a mere “I object” may serve no legal or practical end.
The Hollywood lawyer – whether Gregory Peck, Kate Hepburn, Paul Newman or Denzel Washington – never speaks from notes. And Cousin Vinny, although he never had to give a closing, certainly had no paper in hand when he delivered his inimitable opening statement of “everything that guy said is [expletive deleted].” But it is the rare lawyer who has spoken without notes and then not thought “darn, I wish I’d remembered to say that.” Whatever Hollywood and television have done to shape audience perceptions, there is no reason to conclude that audience expectations are that an attorney will never use notes (except in student mock trial competitions), or that an attorney who does so somehow has diminished credibility or effectiveness. Given the edict that preparation is key to success in advocacy, or as words attributed to Abraham Lincoln explain, “Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe,” reliance on memory, that incredibly faulty and distractible tool, is a less than desirable approach. Consider this …
The Ashley Madison website self-describes as “the most famous name in infidelity and married dating.” https://www.ashleymadison.com/ (last visited August 27, 2015). The hacking of the website resulted in the release of the names of tens of millions of subscribers – individuals who joined the website with the ability and apparently the intent to seek out a partner for an adulterous encounter, be it one-time or ongoing. And if one of those individuals were to now be a witness in a trial, would the act of registering an interest in or seeking out an adulterous relationship be admissible as an attack on credibility? To answer the question requires a parsing of the language, theoretical underpinnings and application of Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b). Before discussing the Rule, practitioners need to be chided for its apparent underuse. Available in many jurisdictions [Pennsylvania being a notable exception] as a tool for attacking witness credibility, its limited role in the litigator’s toolkit is confirmed in evidence lectures, when practicing lawyers and judges show unfamiliarity with the rule; and arguably …
Lawyers fight over hearsay admissibility, concentrating on whether foundational requirements have been met. But, once admitted, the hearsay is just ‘there.’ The leading textbooks on trial advocacy offer no advice on how to deal with hearsay, whether for the proponent to convince the jury of its reliability or the opponent to show its deficiencies. The lawyer’s toolbox seems empty. In actuality, the advocate has several mechanisms to attack or endorse hearsay evidence. For supporting the hearsay, the advocate has the reliability rationale for each hearsay exception. There is no barrier to the proponent incorporating those rationales into a closing argument and telling jurors Why does the law permit you to hear what the patient told the Doctor? Because when you go to get treatment, you tell the Doctor the truth to get the best care. You got to read the text message sent as the accident was unfolding. When people describe an event as it unfolds, it is the event talking, and not any mental manipulation. It’s in the daily business inventory. You know those …
For forty-plus years, learning the art of trial advocacy has included the obligatory viewing of a tape of Irving Younger’s “10 Commandments of Cross-Examination” lecture. And every lawyer who has ventured into the courtroom has seen – if not personally experienced – the dire consequences when a commandment is violated, in particular when the cross-examiner asks the one question too many or inquires about a subject where the answer is not already known. Younger himself acknowledged that the Commandments he posited were meant to be broken by masters of the craft, but urged that adherence to them ensured a safe, productive cross. And the latter point can’t be denied. Were every cross-examiner to follow Younger’s directives, there would be less error in courtroom proceedings. But are there more or different Commandments? Did Younger’s approach leave gaps? The answer to both questions is “yes.” Let’s first recall the 10 that Younger preached. They are: Be brief Use plain words Ask only leading questions Be prepared Listen Don’t get into a quarrel Avoid repetition Disallow witness explanations …
Director of Advocacy Programs Jules Epstein is quoted in this piece on The National Transportation Safety Board‘s investigation into the engineer operating Amtrak Train 188. Read the full story.
Temple University Beasley School of Law
1719 North Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19122
(215) 204-7861
© 2025 Temple University Beasley School of Law.
