In prosecution for Domestic Violence, trial court erred when it sustained objection to defendants attempt to ask complaining witness about prior inconsistent statement she made to domestic relations court. (1) Prior inconsistent statement contemplated for use in cross-examination of an adverse partys witness is not subject to discovery under Crim.R. 16(B). (2) It is not clear from the record that the trial court sustained the objection as a sanction for violation of Crim.R. 16. (3) Cross-examining a witness concerning a prior inconsistent statement is not extrinsic evidence subject to the fact-that-is-of-consequence limitation set forth in Evid.R. 613(B)(2)(a). (4) Under Evid.R. 103(A)(2), defendant was not required to proffer the prior inconsistent statement. Reversed and Remand...
Civ.R. 35 and 37; Independent Medical Examination; Discovery Sanctions -- trial court abused its discretion in awarding party its attorney fees and expenses in bringing motion to compel an independent medical examination since sanctions for discovery violations set forth in Civ.R. 37(A)(4), including an award of attorney fees, do not apply when a party seeks an order requiring another person to submit to a physical or mental examination under Civ.R. 35. Loc.R. 4.11(D); Extrajudicial meansUnder Loc.R. 4.11 of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, moving party has duty to file a brief statement of the extrajudicial means employed to resolve a discovery dispute, and moving party, and therefore, responding party cannot be sanctioned for failing to file such a statement.
An employment discrimination attorney could not monitor an independent psychiatric examination ordered for his client, the California Court of Appeal has ruled in reversing a discovery order. The plaintiff sued Toyota, alleging that he was the victim of same-sex harassment.
Cross-examination is beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth. (Wigmore on Evidence.) It has been said, however, that more cross-examinations are suicidal than homicidal (attributed to Emory R. Buckner in 1936 by Herbert J. Stern in his 1993 work Cross-Examination). Here's another way to look at it: Cross-examination is like a chainsaw. If you don't know how to use it, you'd better not start, because you are going to end up hurting your case.
The admission of an abduction victim's statements immediately prior to the defendant's arrest violated the Confrontation Clause, the Florida Supreme Court has ruled. Further, said the court, defense counsel's questioning of the victim at his discovery deposition was not an opportunity for cross- examination for purposes of the Sixth Amendment,
... and conditions requiring professional examination for discovery. ...
Cross-examination is beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth. (Wigmore on Evidence.) It has been said, however, that more cross-examinations are suicidal than homicidal (attributed to Emory R. Buckner in 1936 by Herbert J. Stern in his 1993 work Cross-Examination). Here's another way to look at it: Cross-examination is like a chainsaw. If you don't know how to use it, you'd better not start, because you are going to end up hurting your case.
... had not been discussed during the examination for discovery, the defence lawyer had accessed pho...
...We commence with an examination of the Canadian scene. . Bureau Case Resolutions .... by an accused on an examination for discovery in a related civil case could be put to him in cro...
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Other interesting searches:
Gallup, Inc | Mount Ida College | Heidelberg Americas, Inc. | Recall Ltd | Hewden Stuart Plc | Louannec | Embarcaciones | Viático | gaby schön | matias somarriva labra
