Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

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Unformatted text preview: ased on the fact that her confession was no longer valid)? Holding: Notes: The former testimony is admissible; differences as to tactics or strategy are disregarded when making the similar motive to develop the testimony inquiry. Note 1 Similar motive Courts interpret similar motive with much stinginess: Party or predecessor in interest is regarded as having a similar motive to develop the testimony when the issue to which the testimony relayed at the former hearing is substantially identical to the issue in the present proceeding. Makes sense though because your testimony really depends on the question asked: Deposition of a given witness will normally look dramatically different from testimony on trial....yet, if you become unavailable and the rule is not interpreted stingy, the opposing party can use the deposition against the party. If you interpret similar motive as broadly as the Ayers court did however, you allow for a lot more pertinent evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible! Wellborn thinks the evidence should have bee...
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