Second degree murder trial. The dog owned by defendant Midor…
Second degree murder trial. The dog owned by defendant Midori is alleged to have attacked and killed Diane. The dog’s breed tends to be exceptionally large (weighing over 100 pounds and reaching over five feet tall when standing on its hind legs). The government’s theory of the case is that Midori’s criminal recklessness in keeping such an animal in a residential neighborhood constituted a substantial and unjustifiable risk to human life, one that a law-abiding person in the same situation would not take. Midori pleads “not guilty.” The prosecution now seeks to introduce the following anonymously typed statement, found on a sheet of paper, taped on the outside of Midori’s front door: “I used to work for a breeder of this kind of dog; I remember that it is an extraordinarily vicious breed; it is only used for combat and fighting.” Defense counsel objects. What is the strongest basis for the objection?
Read DetailsCivil felony fraud litigation. Y sued X for breach of promis…
Civil felony fraud litigation. Y sued X for breach of promise to marry. To prove that X and Y are engaged, Y calls Z, a close friend, to testify that Z heard X ask Y, “will you marry me?” and Y answered “yes.” X’s counsel objects and moves to strike Z’s testimony. What result?
Read DetailsAkamu, an opioid drug dealer, was shot. Akamu accused Hector…
Akamu, an opioid drug dealer, was shot. Akamu accused Hector of shooting him. However, there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Hector. Three months later, Akamu was shot again. As he was being wheeled into surgery, a police lieutenant told Akamu: “You may not live. You should tell me who shot you.” Akamu calmly replied: “Same as last time, Hector.” Akamu lapsed into a coma after surgery and died two months later of an infection. The government now decides to prosecute Hector for Akamu’s death. At Hector’s murder trial, the government seeks to introduce Akamu’s statement to the police lieutenant. Defense counsel objects. What is the defendant’s strongest basis to exclude the evidence?
Read Details