Saturday, January 22, 2011
AALS Poster Project: Chrstine Rollins' Do you know the learning-style preferences of your law students?
Friday, January 21, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
AALS Poster Project: Beyond Etiquette: Bringing E-Communications into the LRW Classroom, by Ellie Margolis & Kristen Murray
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
AALS Poster Project: Jessica Dixon Weaver's The Principle of Subsidiarity Applied: Reforming the Legal Framework to Capture the Psychological Abuse of Children
Monday, January 17, 2011
Rescue 911: Court Of Appeals Of Minnesota Finds 911 Call Authenticated, But Not Under Rule 901(b)(5)
The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.
By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule:...
(5) Voice identification. Identification of a voice, whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording, by opinion based upon hearing the voice at any time under circumstances connecting it with the alleged speaker.
As the above language and the recent opinion of the Court of Appeals of Minnesota in Adams v. State, 2011 WL 9162 (Minn.App. 2011), however, Rule 901(b)(5) is merely an illustration, and voice can be authenticated through other means as long as the standard set forth in Rule 901(a) is satisfied.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
I Need A Remedy: DDC Precludes Evidence Of E-Mail Referencing Subsequent Remedial Measure After Traffic Death
Federal Rule of Evidence 407 provides that
When, after an injury or harm allegedly caused by an event, measures are taken that, if taken previously, would have made the injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a product's design, or a need for a warning or instruction. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment.
And, as the recent opinion of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Cohen v. District of Columbia, 2011 WL 108713 (D.D.C. 2011), makes clear, Rule 407 covers not solely the fact of a subsequent remedial measure but also communications related to such measures.