This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Here are some instructions for your witness to follow during a deposition: A court reporter is present and begins the proceedings by administering the same oath or affirmation that the deponent would take if the testimony were being given in court in front of a judge and jury. As a witness you are sworn to tell the truth, and you must do so.
They included witness interview notes and memoranda. The plaintiff, Mr. Hall, alleged that the Baltimore City Police Department and three former officers concealed exculpatory evidence and coerced false testimony in Mr. Hall’s 1992 murder trial. May 30, 2025)(Austin, J.),
It alleges that plaintiffs sought to depose Mr. Zuckerberg “before deposing a single other witness.” And, it asserts that several other witnesses have “relevant knowledge.” But some experts have defended the doctrine by warning about the discovery abuses that Meta alleges are at play here.
Temple University Beasley School of Law - Advocacy
JULY 11, 2025
And when 404(b) evidence is offered against an accused, effective lawyering means doing all one can to seek its exclusion, have it toned down, or ensure that the jury does no more harm with it than the law permits. The principle was stated as follows: When prior-bad-acts evidence floods the state’s case, counsel must act.
Analyze Argument — Pinpoint the key arguments and evidence within opposing counsel's brief to help you draft a reply and prepare for a hearing. Key Witnesses — Identify the people involved in the case and their roles to inform decisions about document requests, interrogatories, and depositions.
For trial attorneys, winning a court case transcends presenting evidence and examining witnesses. The real battle rages in the minds of the individuals called to jury duty, where perceptions of credibility and trust often determine the outcome before deliberations even begin.
The preparation of witness statements is an essential part of the stock in trade for most litigators. It is surprising how often statements are ill prepared, they are a regular feature of this site. We see examples here when the.
Earlier we looked at a case where a party was not allowed to recover the costs of obtaining non-compliant witness statements. Here we are looking at a case where both sides did not comply with PD57AC. The claimant, aware of.
I am here encouraging lawyers and experts to read the speech of Lord Justice Birss' speech to the Expert Witness Institute. It was the keynote speech to the Expert Witness Institute's Annual Conference. I have extracted highlights. The science teacher's.
Large cases involve many moving parts – tight deadlines, fast-paced and ever-evolving schedules, seas of exhibits, rosters of witnesses, etc., You’re looking for evidence that this firm is well-versed in large cases, and you want to see that firms go back to them again and again for their work.
However, perhaps more significantly, it is about evidence, the impact of. Here we are looking at an important decision of the Court of Appeal. On the face of it it is about a defendant's failure to prove a statutory defence.
An earlier post looked at a case where the court struck out large parts of a witness statement of a solicitor who was proposing to give evidence at trial. Here we look at what happened to the remaining parts of.
It applied a standard of “clear and convincing evidence.” The FTC stated that it relied on that privilege log throughout discovery, including in connection with depositions of key witnesses. It wrote that a party “demonstrates bad faith by delaying or disrupting the litigation or hampering enforcement of a court order.”
However this is a site about civil procedure and evidence so we are largely bypassing the intrigue and lies (but not the potential of a finding of contempt of court) . Here we have a case about MI5, spies and lies.
However, the judge overturned the verdict, claiming the jury had used "guesswork or speculation" to determine those numbers and that, under Federal Rule 702 , should not have heard the evidence presented by two "expert" witnesses. Casey's was not the first company to legally challenge the NFL's stranglehold over merchandising.
However, geolocated evidence did confirm limited Russian gains in Novoserhiivka and southeastern Komar. The air and missile domain witnessed one of the heaviest assaults in recent months. Ukrainian forces made a rare, confirmed advance in northern Dyliivka near Toretsk, offering a symbolic morale boost.
We have had an example earlier this month of things going badly wrong in a fatal claim, that led to a wasted costs order against the solicitors. This webinar looks at the potential problem areas of fatal accident litigation and.
We are looking at a judgment from today where a bank has brought a claim against a firm of solicitors arguing that they have caused the bank loss because of the number and nature of complaints made by the solicitors'.
The first question the lawyer must ask when being presented with a report for use in proceeding is - is this report CPR 35 compliant? If it is not then it may have little, if any value. There is a.
One of the most aggravating things to read about in the legal press are those cases where people get into serious disciplinary trouble after having made a procedural or other mistake. It is not the mistake that has caused their.
We have a case here where a solicitor and KC involved in a case were heavily criticised by the trial judge. The solicitor attempted to appeal those findings and the Court of Appeal considered, among many other things, their Article.
We Are Witnesses Intimate portraits of people who have been touched by the criminal justice system A recent execution Amber McLaughlin was sentenced to death by St. That mitigating evidence could have tipped the scales when the jury couldn’t agree. A judge denied the motion on June 16. Coyle said he will appeal.
We are returning to the issue of non-party disclosure, indeed to the same case as the previous post. That post highlighted the Master's concerns about the way in which claimant's application had been conducted. The same judgment also contains a.
The “Proving things” series has proven to be very resilient and very long lasting. It started in February 2016 and, as of today, there are 267 posts under this heading. More often than the matters covered relate to “not proving.
The Manhattan court deemed that "prior bad acts" testimony from witnesses unrelated to formal charges had unfairly prejudiced the jury. This decision underscored tensions between state laws and federal doctrines regarding evidence admissibility in sexual violence cases.
Proving either one requires meeting strict legal standards, often with the help of medical evidence or expert testimony. North Dakota law is stricter and often bundles emotional distress under general negligence claims, requiring strong evidence and a direct link to a physical or traumatic event.
The question of whether a case should have been started using the Low Value Protocol is often a difficult one. The lawyer for the claimant has to make a decision on this important issue without the benefit of any medical.
There have been a number of cases where litigants have run into difficulties because they have not complied with the requirements for witnesses who give evidence remotely from abroad. We see an example of this case where there a conflict.
Knowing the reasons why a judge may prefer the evidence of one expert over another is an important part of a litigator's skill. Each case is, of course, fact specific, but there are clear trends that can be discerned.
Here we are looking at a case where a party, dissatisfied with the approach of a jointly instructed expert, applied to the court for permission to instruct their own expert. The judgment contains a useful summary of the relevant principles.
The Court affirmed the holding that the asserted prejudice from the failure to produce was insufficient to support exclusion of the evidence. It asserted prejudice because it could not call the person who took the photos as a trial witness. Johnson] intended to introduce the photos into evidence’ at trial.” Rule 2-433(a)(2).
The theme for several of the posts today is how important it is to put information, that could be viewed as adverse to the witness, into a witness statement. If such information is left out, but revealed in cross-examination this.
The courts encourages the use of jointly instructed experts However this does not mean that the case, or even key issues in the case, are necessarily determined by those experts. Here we have a case where the judge held that.
Here we have a case where a claimant was seeking to recover the costs of preparing defective witness statements. The court had ordered that compliant witness statements be filed. Should the claimant be entitled to recover the costs of preparing.
We are revisiting a case we looked at previously in relation to costs orders being made against a Litigant in Person. One specific aspect of that judgment considered the costs of an application for contempt of court that the claimant.
We are looking again at the significance of matters not mentioned in a witness statement. This is another case where the judge found that there had been significant omissions in the claimant's evidence. Again it is a case where these omissions.
Yesterday we looked at issues relating to the capacity of a solicitor's client and their consequent liability to pay costs. Today we look at a case about inter partes costs. If a claimant brings proceedings but does not, in fact,
The post earlier today on the need for MI5 operatives to give the source of their information and belief has a ring of "intrigue" about it. James Bond, we now know, cannot simply declaim something to be true. However, as.
I am grateful to barrister Jack Macaulay for bringing my attention to the case we are looking at here. I refer people to Jack's detailed summary of the issues below. However, here, I want to concentrate on two aspects of.
The Master was highly critical of the applicant's conduct of the application and the evidence in support. Today we are looking at a case that everyone involved in making an application for non-party disclosure should read. It proved to be.
Here we are looking at a case where claimants brought an action claiming that their data protection rights had been breached by a defendant firm of solicitors. The defendant had collated a list of claimants who had relied on a.
We have seen plenty of cases where the courts have not been slow in their criticism of expert witnesses. Here we have a different situation where the judge was critical of the attacks, by each party, on the credibility of.
There were issues in relation to witnessevidence and expert evidence. We are looking at this case for the third time. The problems continued after trial when the judge realised that neither party had addressed her on a mandatory requirement.
We are looking, again, at a case where there were issues as to evidence. Part of the defendant's case was that the evidence was not admissible or was hearsay. The defendant's arguments did not prosper. Hearsay is admissible, the real.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content