12 September

Sticky

Expert Witnesses can Rely on Hearsay….But…

Expert witnesses can rely on hearsay (or inadmissible evidence) in arriving at their expert opinions subject to exceptions set forth below. Vega v. State Farm Mut. Automobile, 45 So.3d 43 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (expert automobile appraiser was entitled to rely on other persons knowledge in vintage automobiles to arrive at estimated value of vintage vehicle); Houghton v. Bond, 680 So.2d 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (expert allowed to rely on inadmissible study to arrive at expert opinion). Indeed, Florida Statute s. 90.704 supports this point by stating: If the facts or data are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in...

29 August

0 Comments

Sticky

Fact Witness Testimony Must be Based on Their Personal Knowledge

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence

Fact witnesses may only testify as to matters within their personal knowledge. Fla.Stat. s. 90.604. “[A fact] witness is limited to testifying to facts that are within the witness's knowledge rather than the witness's speculation and conjecture.” A&A Electric Services, Inc. v. Jurado, 40 Fla.L.Weekly D1963a (Fla.2d DCA 2015). For example, in Jurado, the plaintiff was testifying as to a document he signed and the principal of the defendant signed. In doing so, he testified as to the principal’s intent in signing the document. But, how did he know the principal's intent? Wasn’t he merely speculating as to the principal's intent? Of course...

06 August

0 Comments

Sticky

Rule of Completeness so Entire Writing or Statement is Contemporaneously Introduced

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence

Florida Statute s. 90.108(1) provides: “When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him or her at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement that in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously. An adverse party is not bound by evidence introduced under this section.” This is referred to as the rule of completeness. The objective behind this rule of completeness is to avoid misleading the jury with a statement that is based on incomplete information. See Harden v. State, 87 So.3d 1243,1249 (Fla. 4th...

24 July

0 Comments

Sticky

Using Deposition of Expert Witness at Trial and Reading Portion of Deposition Transcript

Posted by David Adelstein

in Depositions, Evidence, Expert Testimony

Expert witnesses are an important part of civil trials (and criminal trials). Parties utilize expert witnesses at trial to render expert opinions. But, a testifying expert does not need to be at trial live (or, in person) to render an expert opinion. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.330(a)(3) provides in pertinent part: “The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the court finds:…(F) the witness is an expert or skilled witness.” Similarly, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.390(b) provides: “The testimony of an expert…witness may be taken at any time...

17 July

0 Comments

Sticky

Classic Hearsay: Declarant’s Out-of-Court Statement Offered to Prove the Truth of the Matter Asserted

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence

I previously discussed the concept of hearsay and that hearsay is inadmissible evidence at trial. There are exceptions to hearsay---such as the business records exception or admissions against a party opponent—that I have written about since they are important hearsay exceptions at trial that come into play to admit evidence at trial. What is classic hearsay? Hearsay is simply an out-of-court statement (written or oral) introduced at trial to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the out-of-court statement. “[W]hen the only possible relevance of an out-of-court statement [introduced at trial] is directed to the truth of the matters stated by...

19 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Note on Discovery in Litigation

Posted by David Adelstein

in Discovery, Evidence

Here is a quick note on discovery in litigation (e.g., document requests, depositions, interrogatories). An objective of discovery is to discover information that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In other words, just because the discovery appears irrelevant does not necessarily mean that pursuing such discovery will not reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. By taking a more liberal approach to the discovery process, hopefully, some of the unfortunate gamesmanship that occurs during discovery is eliminated or reduced. In particular, parties should not be able to unilaterally dictate what they believe is relevant to...

16 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Laying the Foundation of Photographic Evidence

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence

Photographs make good evidence as they illustrate what a witness is testifying about or conveying. I want to show the witness a relevant photograph, but the witness did not take the photograph. How do I get this photograph into evidence? No different than any other evidence, the proper foundation needs to be laid to admit a photograph into evidence. Metropolitan Dade County v. Zapata, 601 So.2d 239, 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). “[A]ny witness with knowledge that the photograph is a FAIR and ACCURATE REPRESENTATION may lay the necessary foundation for admission of a photograph.” Scarlett v. Ouellette, 948 So.2d 859, 863 (Fla....

07 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Introducing Character Evidence of Prior Bad Acts in a Civil Case

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence

"Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact." Fla.Stat. s. 90.401. I have previously discussed that evidence needs to be relevant for it to be admissible but that not all relevant evidence is admissible (e.g., if the probative value of that evidence is outweighed by unfair prejudice, etc., then the relevant evidence is not admissible). When is evidence of a person's character ever relevant (such as the character of a plaintiff or defendant) to prove or disprove a material fact in a civil case? Generally speaking, it is not relevant and, even if it was relevant, the...

01 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Pinning the Poor Against the Rich at Trial…Nope due to the Presumed Prejudice!

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence

We all like to root for the underdog and want the underdog to succeed. In this regard, there is something compelling about pinning the poor against the rich. We perhaps seek redemption for the poor. So, how does this play out in a jury trial? The answer is it does not and should not. Why; because of the presumed prejudice to the rich and the tendency to punish the deep pocket. By eliciting this evidence, a party is exposing itself to a mistrial. “Florida has a long-standing rule that no reference should be made to the wealth or poverty of a party,...

25 April

0 Comments

Sticky

Admissions Against Party Opponent (Hearsay Exception) Does Not Need to be Based on Party’s Personal Knowledge

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence

An admission against a party opponent is an important exception to the hearsay rule. I previously discussed this hearsay exception in detail because it is an exception that routinely applies in order to admit testimony / evidence at trial. Recently, the case of Jones v. Alayon, 2015 WL 1545005 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) discussed the applicability of this exception. This case was a wrongful death action brought by the decedent’s daughter as personal representative of the estate stemming from an automobile accident caused by an off-duty police officer that originally fled the scene of the accident. The jury awarded the plaintiff...