Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Hearsay (4)
- Montana rules of evidence (3)
- Mre (3)
- Evidence (2)
- Montana (2)
-
- Catchall hearsay exceptions (1)
- Civil trial standard 14 (1)
- Dying declarations (1)
- Expert testimony (1)
- Federal rules of evidence (1)
- Fre (1)
- In-court identification (1)
- Leading questions (1)
- M.r.e. 611(c) (1)
- M.r.e. 702 (1)
- M.r.e. 801 (1)
- M.r.e. 801(d)(1)(B) (1)
- M.r.e. 801(d)(1)(C) (1)
- No-leading on direct (1)
- Non-leading questions (1)
- Prior consistent statements (1)
- Prior inconsistent statement (1)
- Researching montana evidence law (1)
- Residual hearsay exceptions (1)
- Tender the witness (1)
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
"Santa Baby, Just Slip A Sable Under The Tree For Me:" Or At Least A Catchall Exception To The Hearsay Rule?, Cynthia Ford
"Santa Baby, Just Slip A Sable Under The Tree For Me:" Or At Least A Catchall Exception To The Hearsay Rule?, Cynthia Ford
Faculty Journal Articles & Other Writings
This article examines Montana's two rule-based "catchall" or "residual" hearsay exceptions, and a statutory exception that applies only to child declarants in criminal cases.
"As I Lay Dying:" A Halloween Meditation On The Use Of Dying Declarations In Montana, Cynthia Ford
"As I Lay Dying:" A Halloween Meditation On The Use Of Dying Declarations In Montana, Cynthia Ford
Faculty Journal Articles & Other Writings
This article discusses the Montana hearsay exception for "dying declarations."
Prior Statements In Montana: Part Ii, Cynthia Ford
Prior Statements In Montana: Part Ii, Cynthia Ford
Faculty Journal Articles & Other Writings
This article is part two of a two-part series on prior statements in Montana. This article examines prior consistent statements under M.R.E.. 801(d)(1)(B) and how the language of the rule is unclear and confusing, especially compared to the federal version. As a result, Montana has a myriad of case law attempting to apply the Montana rule on prior consistent statements. The article first provides background to the establishment of the rule about prior consistent statements. Next the article discusses both federal and Montana "trigger" cases and compares Montana's approach with that of the federal courts. The article then offers suggestions …
Tender Is The Night: Should Your Expert Be?, Cynthia Ford
Tender Is The Night: Should Your Expert Be?, Cynthia Ford
Faculty Journal Articles & Other Writings
This article discusses the practice of tendering an expert for acceptance or certification by the court at trial in the presence of the jury. The article considers Tennessee and Montana state and federal evidence law. The author suggests that Montana courts and lawyers should comply with the A.B.A. Updated Civil Trial Standard 14 and let juries assess the testimony of a Rule 702 witness without a special designation accorded by the judge certifying a witness as an "expert" in his or her field.
In-Court Identifications Not Hearsay, Are Admissible, Cynthia Ford
In-Court Identifications Not Hearsay, Are Admissible, Cynthia Ford
Faculty Journal Articles & Other Writings
This article examines M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(C) and begins by looking at Montana case law before the rule was adopted and after it was adopted. The article follows with a look at the plethora of federal cases interpreting 801(d)(1)(C). The article points out that although Montana's version of 801(d)(1)(C) mirrors the same rule in the F.R.E, it doesn't seem that the Montana rule is used very often in reported cases. The author concludes that the rule is a good tool to escape from a hearsay objection and thereby avoid a protracted excursion into the numerous hearsay exceptions. Further, the rule applies in …
A Refresher: Mt Evidence Law Sources And Research, Cynthia Ford
A Refresher: Mt Evidence Law Sources And Research, Cynthia Ford
Faculty Journal Articles & Other Writings
This article discusses how to locate, research, and use Montana evidence law sources.
Prior Statements In Montana: Part I, Cynthia Ford
Prior Statements In Montana: Part I, Cynthia Ford
Faculty Journal Articles & Other Writings
This article is part one of a two-part series on prior statements in Montana. In part one, the article explores Montana's approach to prior inconsistent statements under M.R.E. 801. The article states that prior inconsistent statements are clearly admissible in Montana state court trials. Once a witness has testified on the stand, anything else said on the same subject, anywhere, any time, to anyone, which outright contradicts trial testimony, or serves to fill a memory lapse on the stand, is admissible -- not just for impeachment, but also to prove the fact earlier asserted.
Rule 611(C): Where You Lead, I Will Follow, Cynthia Ford
Rule 611(C): Where You Lead, I Will Follow, Cynthia Ford
Faculty Journal Articles & Other Writings
This article examines M.R.E. 611(c), which relates to leading questions when examining witnesses. The first part of the article discusses the purpose behind the "no-leading on direct" rule and how to tell leading from non-leading questions. Then the article offers tips for leading and non-leading questions and answers the question of why leading on cross is allowed. Lastly, the article examines how strictly the rule is observed and reviews Montana cases on 611(c).
Montana V. Federal Evidence Rules 2013: A Short Comparison, Cynthia Ford
Montana V. Federal Evidence Rules 2013: A Short Comparison, Cynthia Ford
Faculty Journal Articles & Other Writings
This article provides a short comparison of the current Federal Rules of Evidence and the Montana Rules of Evidence. It is meant to cover major differences and does not include those, in the view of the author, that are minor or inconsequential.