These lectures are so well done. Unfortunately, in law school, those who know the material best often do not get “As” on issue-spotter exams. “Getting into the weeds” is the coup de grace on a final exam. Studicata is detailed enough to analyze a fact pattern, but brief enough to actually finish fully essays in time. It’s awesome. I would recommend Barbri or Themis for M/C exams though
What would I have done without Michael's lessons??? I will definitely pay that subscription package when the study for bar exam approaches. I have alresdy paid subscription for the 1Ls lesson he has in Studicata and have helped me to get an A every time. Thank youu, please be a law school professor and help all of us poor souls lol
Thank you. Truth has really been screwing me up even when I understand (for the most part) all the other Art 8 rules. It just seems that some questions leave out the context of whether they are using it to prove the truth of the matter asserted or for any of the other 4 exclusions (for lack of a better word). But I'll apply the "do we care?" idea to it. Thanks.
Please note, both of your lecture videos on FRE 801(c) and FRE 801 (d) are about to extremely relevant. Thank you for breaking this down in such a simple manner for those of us who aren't law students. I personally found these videos trying to research what "hearsay" is and whether or not the Trump impeachment will be able to proceed legally. Looks like it will despite what the talking heads are saying! Thanks!
Based on your understanding, can hearsay be used to impeach the testimony of a nonparty witness? For instance, nonparty A claims that witnessed the event in dispute. Can nonparty B testify that A told them, in a previous conversation, that the defendant was innocent? If this is possible, what requirements need to be met first?
Ok. Im still a bit confused. My understanding was that the meaning of the hearsay not being offered to prove the truth of the matter pertained directly to the fact in issue in the case. Eg if the defendant was charged with murder then the hearsay evidence would not be admissible if it was being offered to prove whether or not the Defendant was a murderer. The hearsay would only be admissible if the witness testimoney was being offered because it fell into one of the exceptions for hearsay evidence. Is this correct?.
What if there was a dispute on who damaged a 3rd party's car (or any property) and a witness at that moment of damage tells another person "It was the 2nd guy who damaged the car", would that statement be admissible under any exceptions of hearsay (whether the witness is available or not available) ? OR is such a statement (which the truth of the matter asserted in statement) goes to the heart of the case, can be brought in as a none Hearsay?
Good question! Many statements made during a deposition are inadmissible hearsay. However, there are several ways statements made during a deposition can be admitted into court. Statements made during a deposition that are offered later in court for some reason other than to prove the truth of the matter asserted are not hearsay. Also, statements made during a deposition that satisfy FRE 801(d)(1) or FRE 801(d)(2) are not hearsay (See Part 2: ua-cam.com/video/DvNUq-AUeL8/v-deo.html). Alternatively, statements made during a deposition that are hearsay could still be admissible under FRE 803-804 (See Part 3: ua-cam.com/video/eLTjl0QZoWQ/v-deo.html). Hope this helps!
🚨 SPECIAL OFFER: Want to crush law school finals, rack up scholarship $$$, pass the bar exam, and practice law like a BOSS? Take the LEAP. Get started today for free at: www.studicata.com/leap
I care that the Prosecuting attorney always states facts he has no first person knowledge. The charging officer never has an affidavit along with two witnesses on the complaint. Warrants or the Prosecuter usually never has a Bond on file when they charge the person or arrest them with the warrant. They never have the warrant to show the person arrested to prove its valid. I care that all courts are Admiralty courts because we are in Martial Law since the civil war and because we have no lawful money so the common law is no more. Also the Federal Government was obsolved in 1933 when it was bankrupt and without lawful money lost its sovereignty so it could exist no longer in fact, only in name. United States is a For-Profit Corporation enforcing the Law Merchant UCC Admiralty courts that require an International Contract to have Jurisdiction. If the judge says its a criminal charge, it has to be common law or admiralty. Common law needs an injured party, admiralty needs a contract. Civil needs a contract and can not have a monetary penalty. UCC jurisdiction needs a contract also. "Statutory Jurisdiction" is not a real jurisdiction. So basically none of the courts today are valid or lawful at all.
Barbri should hire you. I just listened to 5 hours of evidence lecture and only now do I understand the truth element enough to apply it
Support Studicata! It's his!!
this is so real
Honestly, you're a better professor than a lot of professors. Lol.
My grades agree....than most of the professors
Honestly! 🤦🏼♀️
This was so incredible clear and helpful, thank you!!
No problem, thank YOU for the support! 💪
Thank you for publishing so valuable videos, they're an excellent tool to refresh the most relevant issues tested on the bar exam.
No problem, happy to help!
Thank you for this great break down, this will greatly help me for my evidence exam next week.
So beneficial. I'm a student of law in Ghana, Africa. Very helpful. Gracias
Just wanted to say thank you. Your videos are super helpful for getting the big-picture of key evidence concepts. Great channel.
Awesome, happy to help! 👍
This finally, FINALLY clarified something that's been eluding us for so long. Thank you for these videos!!
No problem, I'm always happy to help! 💪
These lectures are so well done.
Unfortunately, in law school, those who know the material best often do not get “As” on issue-spotter exams. “Getting into the weeds” is the coup de grace on a final exam. Studicata is detailed enough to analyze a fact pattern, but brief enough to actually finish fully essays in time. It’s awesome. I would recommend Barbri or Themis for M/C exams though
Thank you very much for this video! Very helpful and clear, I loved the examples!
Very clear and concise presentation!
Not all heroes wear capes
You are amazing. Thank you so much.
Thank you! This helped me with my studies.
No problem, happy to help! 👍
Super helpful!!! Great communication on this subject.
What would I have done without Michael's lessons??? I will definitely pay that subscription package when the study for bar exam approaches. I have alresdy paid subscription for the 1Ls lesson he has in Studicata and have helped me to get an A every time. Thank youu, please be a law school professor and help all of us poor souls lol
Studying for the Bar Exam. Yay!
Thank you. Truth has really been screwing me up even when I understand (for the most part) all the other Art 8 rules. It just seems that some questions leave out the context of whether they are using it to prove the truth of the matter asserted or for any of the other 4 exclusions (for lack of a better word). But I'll apply the "do we care?" idea to it. Thanks.
Thanks a ton! This was super helpful for me.
Thank you.
Thanks Mike - I am going to buy your product. I'll Bar in Febroooary 22. ;)
excellent lecture
Thank you so much T.T
Wow. Awesome!!! Good job!
Thank you so much
Please note, both of your lecture videos on FRE 801(c) and FRE 801 (d) are about to extremely relevant. Thank you for breaking this down in such a simple manner for those of us who aren't law students. I personally found these videos trying to research what "hearsay" is and whether or not the Trump impeachment will be able to proceed legally. Looks like it will despite what the talking heads are saying! Thanks!
Please note, the FRE do not apply to impeachment hearings.
@@sarahclemens4823 how so?
@@DonutBoy-iw2ee no shit? I wrote that 2 months ago ... Thanks!
Did you guys take down the character evidence video?! I’m panicking!
I appreciate that
So have to memorize to pass the test. But get to use books and technology to actually do the job?
Based on your understanding, can hearsay be used to impeach the testimony of a nonparty witness? For instance, nonparty A claims that witnessed the event in dispute. Can nonparty B testify that A told them, in a previous conversation, that the defendant was innocent? If this is possible, what requirements need to be met first?
Ok. Im still a bit confused. My understanding was that the meaning of the hearsay not being offered to prove the truth of the matter pertained directly to the fact in issue in the case. Eg if the defendant was charged with murder then the hearsay evidence would not be admissible if it was being offered to prove whether or not the Defendant was a murderer. The hearsay would only be admissible if the witness testimoney was being offered because it fell into one of the exceptions for hearsay evidence. Is this correct?.
What if there was a dispute on who damaged a 3rd party's car (or any property) and a witness at that moment of damage tells another person "It was the 2nd guy who damaged the car", would that statement be admissible under any exceptions of hearsay (whether the witness is available or not available) ?
OR is such a statement (which the truth of the matter asserted in statement) goes to the heart of the case, can be brought in as a none Hearsay?
Does it mean that all depositions are hearsay? If so, what's the point of having them ?
Good question! Many statements made during a deposition are inadmissible hearsay. However, there are several ways statements made during a deposition can be admitted into court.
Statements made during a deposition that are offered later in court for some reason other than to prove the truth of the matter asserted are not hearsay. Also, statements made during a deposition that satisfy FRE 801(d)(1) or FRE 801(d)(2) are not hearsay (See Part 2: ua-cam.com/video/DvNUq-AUeL8/v-deo.html).
Alternatively, statements made during a deposition that are hearsay could still be admissible under FRE 803-804 (See Part 3: ua-cam.com/video/eLTjl0QZoWQ/v-deo.html).
Hope this helps!
Nice
The pen is blue. THE GD PEN IS BLUE!
Hello! What is the FRE rule number for the state of mind exception? Thank you!
FRE 803(3)
🚨 SPECIAL OFFER: Want to crush law school finals, rack up scholarship $$$, pass the bar exam, and practice law like a BOSS? Take the LEAP. Get started today for free at: www.studicata.com/leap
I care that the Prosecuting attorney always states facts he has no first person knowledge. The charging officer never has an affidavit along with two witnesses on the complaint. Warrants or the Prosecuter usually never has a Bond on file when they charge the person or arrest them with the warrant. They never have the warrant to show the person arrested to prove its valid. I care that all courts are Admiralty courts because we are in Martial Law since the civil war and because we have no lawful money so the common law is no more. Also the Federal Government was obsolved in 1933 when it was bankrupt and without lawful money lost its sovereignty so it could exist no longer in fact, only in name. United States is a For-Profit Corporation enforcing the Law Merchant UCC Admiralty courts that require an International Contract to have Jurisdiction. If the judge says its a criminal charge, it has to be common law or admiralty. Common law needs an injured party, admiralty needs a contract. Civil needs a contract and can not have a monetary penalty. UCC jurisdiction needs a contract also. "Statutory Jurisdiction" is not a real jurisdiction. So basically none of the courts today are valid or lawful at all.
Depositions aren't in the literal coutroom
The T14 has nothing on you
... it's like he set his own playback speed to 1.5x
Think ill jusr hire a paralegal and call it a day
I’ve never heard someone break down the out of court element like that. Or at all.
This one was difficult