Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Chapter six authentication and identification

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: hips. One of the witnesses for our side was a psychiatrist named Dr. Horster who had personally treated Ms. Hewlett (the testator). He was allowed, over objection to testify, that in his opinion when she made this will she understood the nature of her estate, was cognizant of who her close relatives were, she was cognizant of what she had to give away of her property, (these are all the elements of capacity to make a will). Texas upheld the admission of this testimony and affirmed the verdict and judgment in favor of the will. Texas Court did say: We're not saying there aren't any limits; for example, it would not have been proper to ask Dr. Horster whether in his opinion had capacity to make a will. Because that is a legal conclusion. Wellborn thinks the drafters should have stated in the rules: Factual conclusion is okay, legal conclusion is not okay...would have helped...because the cases of what have been allowed and what hasn't been allowed or not consistent (unreasonably dangerous/indifference to human life is this is a legal term or no?) In this case it was harmless error? Why? In a race case, the lay concept of discrimination is closer to the legal definition...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course N 483 taught by Professor Wellborn during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online