Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Holding the district court properly excluded the

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: ould not have been a waiver of a constitutional right to obtain witnesses which would render the exclusion proper. If it is the witness himself who violates the rule then you need to use a lesser sanction. Testimony was not cumulative! Appellant's case is different from one where many witnesses could testify to the same facts and the trial court limits the witnesses to a few. Appellant testified on his own behalf, with exclusion of the testimony of his father and his sister, there was no other testimony to the fact that appellant's wife had allegedly brought the items into the house and explained their presence. Witnesses are arguing that she told THEM this, not that she told the defendant this! Notes: Dissent argues that this evidence was cumulative and it was scant value clearly not cumulative (saying that she said it to THEM, not that she said it to the defendant)...it is true that they have a familial relationship that reduces their credibility but that doesn't render it irrelevant under 403 (which is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly!) Note on invoking the rule during discovery: As a practical matter, it wouldn't work, to tell a party your witnesses or potential witnesses can't talk to one another about the case...seems impractical as a matter of trial...
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