Under certain conditions ignorance of the law of evidence does not prevent a lawyer from succeeding at trial.
I exaggerate a bit. But there is more than a grain of truth in what I say -- and this reveals something important about the purpose of the rules governing the making of offers and objections at trial.
What the hard-nosed workings of the rules about objections and offers reveal is that these rules are designed solely for the convenience of the trial court and that the trial court has almost unfettered discretion to decide which party will bear the burden of providing the information that the trial court believes it needs to rule on an offer of evidence or an objection to evidence.
It's here: the law of evidence on Spindle Law. See also this post and this post.
1 comment:
Under "same accurate inference" it could be said that a hiring employer would not fire the same employee in a discriminatory manner. However illogical, it is the case in my situation. Under the "rules of evidence" how does one approach this argument when another pretext was used? Fortunately, there is disparate treatment of only members of the same protected class that they must respond to.
Post a Comment