Search
From Tree Top
BROWSE SEARCH SPINDOC HELP

Law ProfessorPeter Tillers

Professor of Law

Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University

55 Fifth Ave., New York, New York 10003

http://tillers.net

I am a student of the law of evidence, evidence, inference, and investigation. Sometimes I write books. Sometimes I write articles. Sometimes I organize conferences. Sometimes I tinker with computer programs to support the marshaling of evidence for legal activities such as trials and pretrial discovery and investigation. For further details please see http://tillers.net/resume.html.
Contributed branch in 2009 and last edited branch in August 2011:
Federal Rule of Evidence 803(16) and comparable State rules create a hearsay exception for statements in an authenticated document that is more than a certain number of years old, typically twenty years.
Contributed in 2009 & last edited in August 2011 by Peter Tillers
Last edited branch in August 2011:
The hearsay exception for "business records" created by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) or a comparable State rule applies only (i) the record is based on the personal knowledge of an entrant with a business duty to record the event or other such matter or (ii) if the record of the event is based on the personal knowledge of a person who had a business duty to transmit the information about the event or other matter to the person or persons who made the record and had a business duty to do so. A person has a "business duty" if the person has a duty to an organization by reason of law, contract, employment relationship, or other such matter to record or report an event, condition, opinion, or other matter to which the business records exception to the hearsay rule may apply.
Contributed in 2009 by Joannes Vinarao-Pilapil
Last edited in August 2011 by Peter Tillers
Contributed branch in August 2011 and last edited branch in August 2011:
Is a scientific or expert report "testimonial" for purposes of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation and inadmissible against a criminal defendant if the report rests in part on the analysis of opinion of an analyst, expert, or other such person who does not testify at defendant's criminal trial?
Contributed in August 2011 & last edited in August 2011 by Peter Tillers
Contributed branch in August 2011 :
Under some circumstances a scientific or expert report is "testimonial" for purposes of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation and is inadmissible against a criminal defendant if the report rests in part on the analysis of opinion of an analyst, expert, or other such person who does not testify at defendant's criminal trial; but under other circumstances such report is not "testimonial" and its use in a criminal trial against a criminal defendant is not barred even if the analyst, expert, or other such person does not testify.
Contributed in August 2011 by Peter Tillers
Contributed branch in August 2011 and last edited branch in August 2011:
A scientific or expert report is "testimonial" for purposes of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation and is inadmissible against a criminal defendant if the report rests in part on the analysis or opinion of an analyst, expert, or other such person who does not testify at defendant's criminal trial.
Contributed in August 2011 & last edited in August 2011 by Peter Tillers
Contributed branch in 2009 and last edited branch in 2010:
Purposes, functions, and limits of proof and the law of evidence
Contributed in 2009 & last edited in 2010 by Peter Tillers
Contributed branch in 2009 and last edited branch in 2010:
Purposes and factors other than (i) factfinding and (ii) accurate factfinding also influence the process of proof and the law of evidence.
Contributed in 2009 & last edited in 2010 by Peter Tillers
Contributed branch in 2008 and last edited branch in 2010:
Evidence codes and common law evidence principles explicitly enumerate some grounds on which persons may be disqualified from serving as witnesses.
Contributed in 2008 & last edited in 2010 by Peter Tillers
Last edited branch in 2010:
Factfinding & accurate factfinding not the only purposes
Contributed in 2010 by David Gold
Last edited in 2010 by Peter Tillers
Contributed branch in 2009 and last edited branch in 2010:
The hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 807 or a parallel State rule applies only if admission of the affected statement in evidence serves the interests of justice and the general purposes of the law of evidence.
Contributed in 2009 & last edited in 2010 by Peter Tillers
Contributed branch in 2009 and last edited branch in 2010:
The authentication requirement imposed by rules such as Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a) may be satisfied by other methods of authentication that are authorized by applicable legislation or by other applicable rules promulgated pursuant to statutory authority.
Contributed in 2009 & last edited in 2010 by Peter Tillers
Contributed branch in 2009 and last edited branch in 2010:
Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(7) and comparable State rules provide that a writing may be authenticated by evidence that the writing is authorized by law to be recorded or filed and is in fact recorded or filed in a public office; and a purported public record, report, statement, or data compilation, in any form, may be authenticated by evidence that it is from the public office where items of this nature are kept.
Contributed in 2009 & last edited in 2010 by Peter Tillers
Contributed branch in 2009 and last edited branch in 2010:
Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(6) and comparable State rules provide that a statement made by a person over the telephone may be authenticated (i) if the call was to a person, the call was to the number assigned to the person and circumstances, including self-identification, show or suggest that the person who spoke was the person who was called and (ii) if the call was to a business, the call was to the number assigned to that business and the conversation related to business reasonably transacted over the telephone.
Contributed in 2009 & last edited in 2010 by Peter Tillers
Contributed branch in 2009 and last edited branch in 2010:
Other permissible examples of authenticated listed in Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b) and comparable State rules
Contributed in 2009 & last edited in 2010 by Peter Tillers
Contributed branch in 2009 and last edited branch in 2010:
Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(9) and comparable State rules provide that the result of a process or system may be authenticated by evidence which (a) describes the process or system used to produce the result and (b) shows that the process or system produces an accurate result.
Contributed in 2009 & last edited in 2010 by Peter Tillers
Contributed branch in 2009 and last edited branch in 2010:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 902(7) and comparable State rules any inscription, sign, tag, or label is sufficiently authenticated to be admissible in evidence if the inscription, sign, tag, or label purports to have been affixed in the course of business and indicates ownership, control, or origin. Such an inscription, sign, tag, or label is "self-authenticating."
Contributed in 2009 & last edited in 2010 by Peter Tillers
Contributed branch in 2009 and last edited branch in 2010:
Other matters that are self-authenticating; i.e., other matters whose authenticity can be assumed for purposes of admissibility.
Contributed in 2009 & last edited in 2010 by Peter Tillers
Contributed branch in 2009 and last edited branch in 2010:
Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(5) and comparable State rules allow identification of a person's voice -- they allow identification of a speaker -- by a lay witness who has heard the purported speaker's voice on another occasion.
Contributed in 2009 & last edited in 2010 by Peter Tillers
Contributed branch in 2009 and last edited branch in 2010:
Handwriting or any other matter requiring authentication may be authenticated by having an expert witness compare the disputed handwriting or other matter with an authenticated specimen or exemplar and testifying that the author or maker of the disputed handwriting or other matter and the specimen or exemplar is the same person.
Contributed in 2009 & last edited in 2010 by Peter Tillers
Contributed branch in 2009 and last edited branch in 2010:
A matter or thing (such as a signature) may be authenticated by having the trier of fact compare that matter or thing with another matter or thing -- a "specimen" or "exemplar" -- that has been authenticated.
Contributed in 2009 & last edited in 2010 by Peter Tillers
next>>