Thanks. Unfortunately, my career services office is about as useful as male nipples.
Messages - Jumboshrimps
Two things. One, I think people who think the Supreme Court is full of *&^% about matters of criminal procedure should get extra time on crim pro exams because it's a MAJOR disability. And two, most "learning disabilities" are a sham." We do not all learn in a similar manner. One man's ADD is another's creative thinking.
« on: December 09, 2007, 12:50:15 PM »
This is my last resort, I absolutely cannot figure this one out.
The proper vehicle for the Defendant here would be a motion to dismiss the state court action, not a motion for summary judgment. But, maybe the most important aspect of your question is that the STATE's law will apply to whether summary judgment can be granted based on a federal court's finding of a frivolous filing. As someone mentioned above, this is purely a matter of claims preclusion (which would be argued in a motion to dismiss, not a motion for SJ). Since your question doesn't ask about that, here is how you could answer it:
In order to be granted summary judgment in the state court, the defendant would need to show that there are no disputed genuine issues of material fact and that defendant is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Rule 11 sanction has nothing to do with the substantive law or facts of the case, and is therefore irrelevant to summary judgment. Because no motion to dismiss was filed in state court, the defendant has waived any objection to the pleading itself, and because Rule 11 applies only to the adequacy of pleadings, and not their substance, it has no bearing on summary judgment proceedings.
Yeah, great idea. Alter the chemistry of your brain with powerful drugs so that you can overcome understandable exam anxiety.
But really, exams get MUCH less stressful after 1L. MUCH less.
he can ask about specific instances on bad acts in cross examination but not through his own witnesses on direct (see FRE 405)
Yes, but the specific instances that can be inquired into on cross are limited by 404's prohibition of "propensity" evidence (action in conformity therewith). The relevant part of 405(a) is : "On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct." This rule does not negate the rule against pure propensity evidence.
If D were to have a witness testify about his reputation, on cross, p could introduce specific acts as more of an impeachment sort of thing though.
True, but only if the cross examiner had gotten D to say something like, "I have never committed a crime in my life." If properly prepared to testify, D would know not to say that.
FRE 404(b) applies here:
"Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial."
Specific acts, then, are NEVER admissible merely to show action in conformity therewith. The trick is to convince the judge that the specific act goes to motive, intent, or something else. The great thing about the introduction of evidence is that the evidence you are trying to introduce is for exactly what you say it is for, if you are convincing enough.
Whew... I can't believe you just posted all of that. First of all, lawyers rarely visit this board, and us nonlawyers can not give you any legal advice. However, we can give you nonlegal advice, and advice on how to testify in court falls under that category. So, here is some sound nonlegal advice on how to be a good witness:
Tell the truth and answer the questions you are asked.