- 58
- 299 528
Evidence at Trial
United States
เข้าร่วมเมื่อ 28 เม.ย. 2019
Evidence at Trial is about a community of lawyers devoted to mastering the tools of litigation. From blog articles and online courses to live events, Evidence at Trial is passionate about helping attorneys develop and improve their individual practice.
The Roof Was Too Dangerous?!?!? The Power of Non-Leading Questions!!
Check out @evidenceattrial's latest video where David Sugden looks at the power of the non-leading question during cross-examination.
Check out Evidence at Trial's oneline courses at: www.evidenceattrial.com/online-courses
Want to become an Evidence at Trial member? Check out: www.evidenceattrial.com/membership
Check out Evidence at Trial's oneline courses at: www.evidenceattrial.com/online-courses
Want to become an Evidence at Trial member? Check out: www.evidenceattrial.com/membership
มุมมอง: 243
วีดีโอ
Deposition Objections! No Foundation?
มุมมอง 1.3Kหลายเดือนก่อน
In @evidenceattrial's latest video, David Sugden breaks down whether "no foundation" is a proper objection to make at depositions. Learn more about becoming a member of Evidence at Trial at www.evidenceattrial.com/membership Want a topic covered? Leave a comment!
Exciting News from E@T: Membership Now Available!
มุมมอง 52หลายเดือนก่อน
Evidence at Trial is pleased to announce its new Membership opportunity for lawyers looking to take their practice to the next level. The Evidence at Trial Membership gives you the tools, training, and support to feel confident in every courtroom. With access to expert-led courses and practical resources, you’ll develop real-world skills to elevate your practice-at your own pace. Whether you’re...
An Evidence Riddle: Person Takes Medicine .... Hearsay?
มุมมอง 2312 หลายเดือนก่อน
In his latest video, David Sugden of @evidenceattrial considers whether a person taking medicine might be ... hearsay? Learn more about becoming a member of Evidence at Trial at www.evidenceattrial.com/membership Check out Evidence at Trial's online courses at www.evidenceattrial.com/online-courses
Hearsay? An "Inconsistent" Statement?
มุมมอง 4842 หลายเดือนก่อน
In this video, David Sugden of @evidenceattrial breaks down the inconsistent statement exception to the hearsay rule. Learn about becoming a member of Evidence at Trial with all-access to courses and exclusive bonus content. www.evidenceattrial.com/membership Check out Evidence at Trial's online courses at www.evidenceattrial.com/online-courses Want a topic covered? Leave a comment!
SECURE YOUR SPOT! Premier Trial Lawyer Conference: TLU Live Vegas 2024
มุมมอง 1433 หลายเดือนก่อน
Register today for TLU Live Vegas 2024, the premier Trial Lawyer Conference of the year, hosted by Trial Lawyers University. This extraordinary event will bring together over 100 of the nation's top-ranked trial lawyers, each eager to share their winning techniques, strategies, and courtroom secrets. Don't miss this unparalleled opportunity to learn from the best in the industry, gain invaluabl...
Talking Superwitness Michael Cohen with Will Cain on @WillCainShow
มุมมอง 1077 หลายเดือนก่อน
Be sure to check out @WillCainShow Best podcast / video show on the planet. Learn about becoming a member of Evidence at Trial with all-access to courses and exclusive bonus content. www.evidenceattrial.com/membership Check out Evidence at Trial's online courses at www.evidenceattrial.com/online-courses Want a topic covered? Leave a comment!
Talking Trials with Will Cain
มุมมอง 2878 หลายเดือนก่อน
Many thanks to Will Cain of Fox & Friends and the Will Cain Show for the chance to sit down and talk trials. Follow Will Cain on X at @willcain Be sure to also check out and subscribe to the the Will Cain Show (best podcast and livestream show around) at radio.foxnews.com/podcast/will-cain-show/ Learn about becoming a member of Evidence at Trial with all-access to courses and exclusive bonus co...
Congress' January 6th Report: An "Admissible" Document?
มุมมอง 15K10 หลายเดือนก่อน
Welcome to our in-depth analysis, where we dissect the groundbreaking decision by the Colorado Supreme Court regarding former President Donald Trump's eligibility to appear on the ballot. This ruling, rooted in the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, Section 3, has sparked extensive debate and scrutiny. Here are the 5 key takeaways from the court's decision and the evidence considered during ...
Trump is OFF the BALLOT?!?!
มุมมอง 2.3K11 หลายเดือนก่อน
In Dave Sugden's latest video, he looks at the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that held Donald Trump cannot be on the presidential primary ballot. Learn about becoming a member of Evidence at Trial with all-access to courses and exclusive bonus content. www.evidenceattrial.com/membership Check out Evidence at Trial's online courses at www.evidenceattrial.com/online-courses Want a topic covered? ...
Donald Trump Fraud Trial: The Impeachment That Wasn't!
มุมมอง 43111 หลายเดือนก่อน
Dave Sugden of @evidenceattrial looks at the missed impeachment opportunity in Donald Trump's examination. Learn about becoming a member of Evidence at Trial with all-access to courses and exclusive bonus content. www.evidenceattrial.com/membership Check out Evidence at Trial's online courses at www.evidenceattrial.com/online-courses Want a topic covered? Leave a comment!
Donald Trump Fraud Trial: The Judge Did WHAT!?!?!
มุมมอง 151Kปีที่แล้ว
Donald Trump Fraud Trial: The Judge Did WHAT!?!?!
Donald's TRIAL TESTIMONY was ... What?!?!?
มุมมอง 12Kปีที่แล้ว
Donald's TRIAL TESTIMONY was ... What?!?!?
Are Medical Records Admissible at Trial?
มุมมอง 991ปีที่แล้ว
Are Medical Records Admissible at Trial?
What is the Party Admission Exception to Hearsay?
มุมมอง 3.6Kปีที่แล้ว
What is the Party Admission Exception to Hearsay?
Justin Bieber, Usher and ... Judicial Notice?!?!
มุมมอง 652ปีที่แล้ว
Justin Bieber, Usher and ... Judicial Notice?!?!
Martha Stewart v. Michael Jackson: Fearless and Fruitless Opening Statements!
มุมมอง 938ปีที่แล้ว
Martha Stewart v. Michael Jackson: Fearless and Fruitless Opening Statements!
How to Impeach a Witness with Prior Deposition Testimony
มุมมอง 6Kปีที่แล้ว
How to Impeach a Witness with Prior Deposition Testimony
CAUTION: Follow (or Avoid) the "One Question Too Many" Rule on Cross-Examination?
มุมมอง 1.2Kปีที่แล้ว
CAUTION: Follow (or Avoid) the "One Question Too Many" Rule on Cross-Examination?
Fix a Common (and Unnoticed) Cross-Examination Mistake!
มุมมอง 862ปีที่แล้ว
Fix a Common (and Unnoticed) Cross-Examination Mistake!
How to Fix Your Direct Examination! Two Tricks! (No "Written Questions")
มุมมอง 3Kปีที่แล้ว
How to Fix Your Direct Examination! Two Tricks! (No "Written Questions")
Objection SUSTAINED?!? Lack of Foundation?? (Quick Fix)
มุมมอง 2.8Kปีที่แล้ว
Objection SUSTAINED?!? Lack of Foundation?? (Quick Fix)
Really good. Thanks.
This is only for California which should have been disclosed in title.
This was excellent!! Thank you.
Love your videos.
Can the plaintiff herself authenticate an email she received? Is it enough that she says she received that email as she is presenting it or does the authentication need to come from someone other than the party trying to use the evidence? Thanks
based on your examples, are those questions sufficient to set up the hearsay exception that you would want to apply when asking what the doctor said? or would you run into a hearsay objection? if you believe it might be a hearsay objection, can you provide some insight into what you might add or adjust to successfully apply the exception? (the exception I refer to is that the evidence is not for the truth of its contents but rather an explanation toward something else; I went to the hospital because the doctor told me to) @evidenceattrial
I'd have added a : 'and aren't your agents trained to put themselves directly into harms' way to protect the president' 'isn't that consistent with tradition and mission'
Great point. Would have been even better!
I dont like taking depositions, and if witnesses were more like my pillow guy, I'd just find a different profession.
Vlad is such a weird guy, all his questions are literally so pointed and directed. Dude is literally asking about his experience with each rapper, then what individual did he have a bad experience with, then how much does this guy charge. He’s not even interested in his genuine answer. Vlad is an informant.
Incorrect. Depositions are discovery vehicles. Lack of foundation is an evidence admissibility objection, not a discovery objection. Evidence objections are not appropriate at a deposition, only discovery objections (such as form of the question, and privilege). In fact the same exact code section that he cites in this video, but one subsection later (ccp 2025.460 sub (c)) tells us the exact opposite of this video. This subsection tells us it is NOT a waiver to not make an objection if it's an admissibility based objection (like foundation). In fact, the statute goes so far as to say that these types of objections are unnecessary. The quote is as follows: "(C) Objections to ... the admissibility at trial of the testimony ... are unnecessary and are not waived by failure to make them before or during the deposition."
Would it be possible to get an objective break down on the Trump lawsuits. I listened to the NY Court of appeals oral argument on the loan fraud case and it paints a much different picture than what the media seems to be suggesting.
How can we authenticate the letter that Erik Menendez wrote to his cousin Andy Mano.? Andy Mano is no longer alive.
Great question! Remember, when it comes to authentication, the proponent of the document simply needs to provide evidence "sufficient to sustain a finding that it is the writing that the proponent claims it is" (i.e., neither the author nor the recipient are per se required to authenticate a document). Erik (and/or someone familiar with his handwriting) could conceivably "authenticate" the letter. Hope this helps. Perhaps a video on the Menendez case and evidence should be in the works?
The goal of the opposing Attorney is to attack and impeach the Witness, even if the witness is innocent and right.
Great video as always. However, I do not understand which part of a prior inconsistent statement is hearsay. If the person who previously made the statement is in court to be examined, how can it be hearsay to begin with? Am I missing the context? Is it that the mode of recording (ie: video or document) what triggers the issue?
Hi @forouzanlawshmoozinwithfor6480 Good question! Even though the witness is on the stand, the witness is being asked about a 'prior' statement. Hearsay is any "out of court statement" even if the declarant who made the statement is the witness on the stand. I hope this makes sense. Our Evidence 101 course does a deep dive on the hearsay rule. You can find more information on the course here: www.evidenceattrial.com/california-evidence-101
These lessons are awesome 👌. I feel like I am back in school learning concepts I never really mastered. I recommend any law practitioner at any level of experience to become a member of Dave's courses.
Thank you @christopherbazen5912!! 👊
Thank you! Very helpful!
Thank you!!
🎉Thank you so much‼️
😁Thank you!
Sorry- but being asked that question as a witness, I would be confused both ways and would feel compelled to say “yes/no/correct, I didn’t buy OJ”
Funny how they only follow procedure, not law!
Funny administration court's, not any court's at law in America anymore!
So does the lawyer or prosecution have any firsthand knowledge of anything that has happened in this case ? No foundation of anything!
Always object to any word that comes out of any attorneys/ lawyer's mouth, always nothing but hearsay, ask judge if hearsay is allowed in this courtroom! They never have any firsthand knowledge of anything that happened in any case!Just hearsay !
David can you do a video on what the shit that Biden did?
Thanks
Mnemomic
Can you do a video in how to cross examine an adult autistic witness without making a fool of either side.
As an autistic adult listening to you , you have to take into account the neurological challenges that could cause a disservice to justice itself if you can’t just ask a straight question of them.
Sir, how to Produce a You tube Video admissible in the Court of Law as Evidence and Authenticate it in a Pen Drive or hard Disk. It might happen the Video Downloaded on a day but on the day the Court hearing date is the Uploaded Video might get removed. So in that case the Downloaded Video becomes the only proof. Now how do we Certify and Authenticate the Downloaded Video as Evidence and True Copy in the Court of Law
Fantastic breakdown. Just fun.
Much appreciated!
classy read! haha thank you for the explanation of this concept.
Thank you! 😁
Gitmo for that heathen!
Really good content
Thank you!
Thanks.
GREAT VIDEO ! THANK YOU !
Thank you!!👊🏼
What if you have to direct examine a hostile witness? Can you use leading questions?
Great question. Short answer: Yes. FRE 611(c)(2) provides that leading questions are permitted "when a party calls a hostile witness." CEC 776 provides that "a party to the record ... or a person identified with such a party, may be called and examined as if under cross-examination as if under cross-examination...."
Oh man the choice of words used to form a question is incredibly critical geez
I'm having an exam in the law of evidence this afternoon, this video was really helpful. Character evidence is one of the topics I found so hard to understand. Thank you very much
Lopez Kevin Garcia Shirley Smith Michael
It's not exactly fair to compare openings of defense attorneys when they have different cases/facts/evidence. If you as a defense attorney start making promises to prove something, you better back it up and prove it. If you don't, then you come off as a liar or a shyster, and that opening that might have sounded great to start will now come back to haunt the defense attorney at the end of the trial if they didn't follow through with their claims to prove something. Thus, It's a lot easier for a defense attorney to say they are going to prove something in their opening when they actually have evidence to prove something or contradict or disprove some of the States evidence and or entire case. But if the States case is pretty solid and defense has nothing to work with, then the defense attorney isn't going to make all these bold claims that might sound great in a opening but that the defense attorney can't actually prove.
Can a third-party Defense attorney obtain & fill out authorization form himself and give to plaintiff to sign during Deposition Mtg and as part of added Discovery doc request?what’s typically the time limits of authorized doc review and access for a third-party requestor (Defense) in an Employment Discrimination Case? Ex if third party asks for records beginning 5 yrs prior to employment start date up to access for 1 full year in future. Thank you.
👍
❤️🔥❤️🔥❤️🔥❤️🔥❤️🔥❤️🔥❤️🔥❤️
How do you overcome improper impeachment objection. Since judges and prosecutors are used to the text book version.
Awesome lesson for legal practitioners. The practitioners in this case should have taken your class. There open ended questions to Trump just dragged out the case
I went to Federal court in Wisconsin. they would not allow me use this technique because the judge said I have to give the defendants prior notice that i would use the deposition to impeach. I had never heard such non-sense, and still have not. I have been looking for a FRCP, a local rule, or a circuit rule- to no avail. But they cant be making that up because it would possibly create a mistrial.
Ok let's talk about Milwaukee that great innovative city that Democrats love it's to bad Trump feels he needs to shit on a great city did you know that in the 20s Milwaukee had very successful mayors that ran on the socialist party and brought great things to the city way before FDR even was thinking about social security for seniors Milwaukee was thinking of that for 10 years before some of the social programs saved America economy so remember when Republicans scream that Democrats are socialist they just now their heads like Bernie Sanders and say thanks for the complement.
Where can I find Los Angeles Superior Court "Yellow Evidence Tags"? for Exhibits?
Link to courses doesn't work
Thanks very much for this. Just fixed the link. Sorry for the inconvenience. It should work now. www.evidenceattrial.com/online-courses
Can a police officer authenticate text messages at trial without the victim being there?
Can you please run an analysis on the legitimacy of the recent Trump jury trial verdicts and the any grounds for reversal on appeal?