HAPPY TO COME TO YOU!

Call Today!

702.423.3333

Evidence Articles

Witness Competency

     This short blob/article was written for my, Eric Roy, and my staff’s own benefit.  The rules outlined below are those that govern witness competency as dictated by Federal Rules of Evidence.  That being said, many states adopt the Federal Rules of Evidence in part or in total.  Thus, always look to your state rules specifically to determine how your local courts handle these matters.    

Understanding Hearsay Doctrine

     The purpose of the hearsay doctrine is to exclude evidence which may lack reliability.  Analogous to the best evidence rule, the hearsay rule gives preference for live testimony subject to cross examination as opposed to out of court statements being later repeated in trial which are thus no longer subject to cross examination.  It is thought that the mechanism of cross examination is the most effective tool we have for delivering and finding truth in our jury system.  We want an individual who makes a statement to be cross examined as to his or her perception, memory, narration, and s

Procedure for Objections to Evidence

     Either party may seek an advanced ruling regarding a proposed item of evidence prior to trial.  The party seeking such will do so by motion in limine.  A proponent of evidence may move in limine so as to determine, prior to trial, whether some evidence will be admissible at trial.  This is a smart move as it eliminates risk of an objection to your evidence being sustained at trial or worse yet a mistrial granted by opposing counsel.   More frequently, the opponent of evidence will move pre-trial to suppress evidence.  An advance ruling to suppress evidence is important as it eliminates

Privileges

     We know that logically and legally relevant should be admitted so as to assist the trier of fact in reaching a proper ruling or verdict.  That being said we also know that there are times when even this logically and legally relevant evidence is precluded from the courtroom.  The reasoning behind such exclusions typically boils down to policy reasons which the legislature believes are significant enough to justify the exclusion.  Of course, there are exceptions to exceptions as we often see.  We will explore some privileges here and the exceptions to those privileges.

Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 16.1 (Revised)

     Rule 16.1 governs mandatory pretrial discovery requirements.  The rule is divided into seven subsections.  The subsections are (a) through (g) and govern attendance at the early case conference, meet and confer requirements, case management report, case conference disputes, failure or refusal to participate sanctions, complex litigation, and proper person litigants.

Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 26

     This blog was written for my own personal benefit.  Here I look at Rule 26 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure which governs general rules governing discovery.  The rule provides for obtaining discovery by method of deposition, interrogatories, production of documents or things, requests for admissions, and permission to enter land for inspection of other purposes such as physical and mental examinations.

Nevada Civil Trial Rules (Part 2)

     There will be circumstances in which our witnesses will not have strong recollection of the facts we wish them to testify to.  This will particularly be the case when you are dealing with professionals who are accustomed to drafting reports on a regular basis.  This is customary for doctors in particular who see so many clients that it becomes difficult for them to remember one client from another without reference to a report prepared for the client.  As trial counsel you are permitted to use this type of documentation of your witness does cannot recall the facts without reference to

Nevada Civil Trial Rules

     This blog/article was written primarily for my, Eric Roy’s, own benefit.  It covers some of the basic rules governing the setting and conduct of trial in the state of Nevada.  For a more thorough understanding of the subject please see the Nevada Civil Practice Manual which outlines these rules with greater sufficiency. 

Hearsay Doctrine Exceptions

     As we know, there is a general prohibition against hearsay statements from being presented as evidence in the courtroom.  The rationale for that prohibition being that such statements lack reliability given their out of court nature and inability to cross examine effectively upon those out of court statements.  There are, however, exceptions and exemptions applicable to the hearsay rules.  Today I want to talk about some of these exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Subscribe to Evidence