Cousin Vinny lays a foundation.

Posted on March 27, 2008 by Robert Boggs

I attended a seminar yesterday and learned something interesting.  Professor John A. Strait of the Seattle University School of Law informed us that in the movie "My Cousin Vinny", Vinny (Joe Pesci) correctly lays the foundation required by ER 702 to quailify his fiancee Mona Lisa (Marisa Tomei) as an automovie expert.  I could not find the "transcript" of that part of the trial, but here is the District Attorney doing his best  to challenge her qualifications:

D.A. Jim Trotter: Now, uh, Ms. Vito, being an expert on general automotive knowledge, can you tell me... what would the correct ignition timing be on a 1955 Bel Air Chevrolet, with a 327 cubic-inch engine and a four-barrel carburetor?
Mona Lisa Vito: It's a bullshit question.
D.A. Jim Trotter: Does that mean that you can't answer it?
Mona Lisa Vito: It's a bullshit question, it's impossible to answer.
D.A. Jim Trotter: Impossible because you don't know the answer!
Mona Lisa Vito: Nobody could answer that question!
D.A. Jim Trotter: Your Honor, I move to disqualify Ms. Vito as a "expert witness"!
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Can you answer the question?
Mona Lisa Vito: No, it is a trick question!
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Why is it a trick question?
Vinny Gambini: [to Bill] Watch this.
Mona Lisa Vito: 'Cause Chevy didn't make a 327 in '55, the 327 didn't come out till '62. And it wasn't offered in the Bel Air with a four-barrel carb till '64. However, in 1964, the correct ignition timing would be four degrees before top-dead-center.
D.A. Jim Trotter: Well... um... she's acceptable, Your Honor.

Tags: ,

E-Discovery: Now that I've found it how do I get it in.

Posted on August 8, 2007 by Robert Boggs

In a Technolawyer news letter I learned that a certain judge in the case of Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33020 (D. Md. May 4, 2007) issued a one hundred page opinion that is essentially a primer on how to get electronic evidence in at trial.

Tags: ,

The Three Rs of Evidence

Posted on November 2, 2006 by Robert Boggs

You are in trial.  The other side has just asked a question that will elicit testimony that you are pretty sure is not admissible or you just plain do not like it.  You shout, "Objection your Honor."  You have not cited an evidence rule.  The judge turns to you and says, "On what basis?"  Time stands still as you try to marshall a reason but seem paralyzed.  Lose that deer in the head lights look by relying on the Three Rs of Evidence.

Most rules regarding the admissibility of evidence fall into three categories. The first is Relevance.  Does the proffered evidence have the tendency to make the existance of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.  The second is Reliability.  These would be such rules as hearsay, or the authentication of a document.  The third is is it Right?  These would be rules based on some policy.  For instance the rule regarding post remedial measures is based on the policy that we want the Defendant to fix the problem without worrying that they are admitting liability.

If you remember these three Rs you should be able to grab onto to one of them and, for example, start arguing about why the evidence is unreliable and chances are you or the judge will finally hit on the actual rule. 

Tags: