Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Inadmissible a thinly veiled hypothetical may not be

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: ury and was therefore inadmissible under Rule 701. Court says Quiroga shouldn't have been allowed to say that Torres was not "discriminated against based on her national origin" verbatim. Should have been allowed to say that the "decision was not motivated by her race or national origin" not tracking the language of the statute. Discrimination is a legal term "The defendants could have asked Dr. Quiroga whether she believed Torres' national origin `motivated' the hiring decision." This type of question would directly address the factual issue of Dr. Malueg's intent without implicating any legal terminology. Notes: Why do we have a distinction between an ultimate "fact" conclusion and an ultimate "legal" conclusion? Advisory Committee Note (p. 461, first full paragraph). Based on Texas case: Will challenged on ground that the testator had lost it mentally, in her will she made a generous bequest to the University of Texas School of Law for scholars...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online