This is a complex subject that demands our in-depth consideration. Currently, an increasing number of students have come to recognize the equal significance of social practice and academic learning. I am a firm advocate of the idea that one of the crucial paths to becoming successful individuals lies in the seamless integration of practical experiences with professional knowledge. It is a fact that cannot be overlooked that a significant proportion of graduates recruited by large enterprises often struggle with the practical application of their academic achievements. They find themselves ill-equipped to translate the theoretical concepts learned during their college years into real-world production scenarios. This deficiency can be attributed, to a large extent, to the limited practical exposure they receive during their university tenure. The semesterly formalized assignments not only consume a substantial amount of their precious time but also impede their efforts to cultivate the essential skills required for practical implementation. Consequently, it becomes imperative for students to acquire the ability to establish a robust connection between social practice and academic learning. This capacity is not only a key asset but also an indispensable tool for their future success and personal growth.
This is a complex subject, but I firmly believe that social practice and academic learning are equally significant, as more and more students think nowadays.
I strongly support that one vital way to be successful people is to combine real practice with professional knowledge. I want to emphasize further that a majority of graduated students hired by a big company are in effect found to lack the pragmatic capability to proficiently apply their academic knowledge learned in college to the real production activity. It is essential to consider that during the university, the practical experience they gain is insufficient to support their career owing to some formalized assignments they have to finish every semester, extremely preoccupying their valuable time dedicated to cultivating the key ability for manufacturing practice. Therefore, learning how to build the connection between social practice and academic learning is an indispensable capacity that students truly need to realize and master.
My body's on the line now
I can't fight this time now
I can feel the light shine on my face
Did I disappoint you?
Will they still let me over
If I cross the line?
Take a seat
But I'd rather you not be here for
What could be my final form
Stay your pretty eyes on course
Keep the memories of who I was before
So stay with me because
My body's on the line now
I can't fight this time now
I can feel the light shine on my face
Did I disappoint you?
Will they still let me over
If I cross the line?
Honestly
I thought I was fully prepared for
The threshold in store
Stay your pretty eyes on course
I guess I never really faced my fears before
So stay with me because
My body's on the line now
Pull the blanket tight now
I can feel the light shine on my face
Did I disappoint you?
Will they still let me over
If I cross the line?
Please don't let them see me
Sure there's nothing left to try
I can feel the light shine on my face
Did I disappoint you?
Will they still let me over
If I cross the line?
If I cross the line
If I cross the line
The pulse of sleep is sucking at my eyes, I'm nursing it like a baby while it sucks me dry. And I'm staying up talking to a phone like God And like a mother, there is never respite. I'm sinking my hands into the piano like mud, I'm hoping and praying that I get stuck, I'm staying up talking to a phone like God, I'm resisting the trip while I'm falling in love. Cause you choose which one you want to rule you the best, A man or the never ending desire of success, I know which one is in my bed tonight, Dinner's on thе table with a pen and a knife. Thе meal tastes like paper and ink and pain, The words are different but the song's always the same. And while I'm seated and while I write and chew I try to not make the song about you. I can be your mother, I can be a dream, I can make it look like it never happened, Leave it clean. Oh I could be your friend Or I could be on my back, I could beg or I could bully, I could brace you for impact. Oh I could be counterfeit, I could be real, I could be the wound in your neck you tell your friends you can heal. I could be 500 virgins, I could be 500 whores, I could be anything anything anything But yours. You read to me quietly on the window sill, Our bodies will never be close enough if they tried, which they will. You either keep a close eye or a closed eye on it, I watch myself while I ride the emotional dick. Cause you choose which one you want to fuck you in place, A man or the the ache in your legs backstage, I know which one gets me on my knees, Gripping my hair like I'm made of sheets. The voice in my ear says "remember the bet." I'm nodding enough, then I'm holding my breath. Remember, remember, remember the bet. This love feels like a threat. I can be your mother, I can be mad, I could talk utter bullshit or I could be matter of fact. Oh I could be broken Or I could be whole, I could be something to fix in your New Year's resolution goal. Oh I could be an angel, I could be a jerk, Make a plan to save me, you can choose if you want it to work. I could be a purity to ruin, Corrupt for you to restore, I could be anything, anything, anything but yours. I can be your mother, I can be your dad, I could be the family that you always wished you had. I could be a kiss, I could be a hit, Lemme know if you ever figure out the difference. Oh I could a fact, I could be a lie, I could be the truth you search for your whole life but never find. I could be your bravado, I could be gone tomorrow, I could be anything, anything, anything, anything.
The federal court has the discretion to invoke Pullman abstention when it may be unnecessary for the court to decide a federal constitutional challenge to an ambiguous or uncertain state law that involves an important state function.
The Younger doctrine requires a federal court to abstain from the exercise of jurisdiction and dismiss a suit in which the plaintiff seeks an injunction or a declaratory judgment against ongoing state criminal proceedings. Younger abstention does not apply if the plaintiff can show that the ongoing state prosecution is (1) brought in bad faith or for purposes of harassment or (2) if the plaintiff will not have an adequate opportunity to raise his constitutional claim in the pending state court proceeding.
The Burford doctrine requires a federal court to abstain from the exercise of jurisdiction in a case where the plaintiff seeks an injunction or declaratory judgment in a suit that would require the federal court to review state administrative decisionmaking and fact-finding in fields that are traditionally subject to state regulation.
Character Evidence: Generally Speaking, evidence of a person’s character or trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with that character or trait.
Crim. Exceptions CE: However, in a criminal case, the D may “open the door” by bringing evidence of their pertinent trait, and if they do that, the P can rebut it.
Additionally (barring 412 stuff), the D may bring evidence of V’s pertinent trait which the P can rebut and/or bring evidence of D’s same trait.
Rule 412: The D may not bring evidence of the V’s other sexual behaivior or sexual predisposition.
In a crim case, the D may bring such evidence of specific sexual behaivior to show that the D was not the source of the semen or other physical evidence and specific sexual behaivior with the D to show that the V consented (the P may also bring up specific relevant sexual behavior with D). Additionally, the D may bring 412 evidence if not doing so would violate their constitutional rights.
In a civil case, D may bring 412 evidence if its PV substantially outweighs the harm caused to any person (reverse 403 balancing.) Evidence of V’s general reputation may only be brought if P “opens the door.”
In a homicide case, if D claims that V was the aggressor, then P can bring evidence of V’s trait for peacefulness.
Typically, if character evidence is admissible, it must be proven through reputation/opinion on direct. Then, on cross OP can rebut it using specific instances of conduct. OP must be able to show the judge proof for the basis of their questioning and they are stuck with the answer that the W gives them. Can’t bring in extrinsic evidence.
However, the party calling the witness may talk about specific instances of relevant conduct on direct if the character trait is an essential element of the charge, claim, or defense.
Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted similarly. However, this evidence may be admissible for any other purpose such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.
However, in a civil or criminal case, P can bring evidence that the D has/may have committed sexual assault/moselested children (under age 14, but if over that can still get them with the sexual assault exception) before to show that they have done it again.
Evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine may be used to show that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine.
Any party may use 607-609 to impeach a witness. Credibility may be attacked/supported (trait for untruthfulness/truthfulness) in the form of reputation/opinion evidence. May only support credibility if it was attacked first. On XE, may inquire into specific instances of relevant conduct to support/attack credibility of the witness themself or another witness they testified about. Can’t do on direct (except for 609). Can’t use extrinsic evidence (except for 609)
Rule 609: When you want to attack a witness’ credibility with evidence of a criminal conviction.
If the crime was punishable by more than a year in the convicting jurisdiction
-In a Civil Case or Crim where W is not D: Must admit subject to normal 403 balancing
- In a Criminal Case where witness is D: Must admit if PV outweighs UP (modified 403 w/ more discretion to exclude) (balancing for 609: nature of crime, similarity to current charge, time of conviction/reoffender status, need to hear from witness, and credibility issue central?)
For any crime, must admit if the court can readily determine by looking at the written record that the crime required proving or the witness admitting a dishonest act or false statement.
If it’s been more than ten years since the conviction or release (whatever is later), the evidence is only admissible if the probative value substantially outweighs the prejudicial effect and the proponent gives OP reasonable written notice.
Evidence of a conviction is not admissible if the person was (based on rehabilitation) pardoned, annulled, sent to rehabilitation, etc. and the person has not reoffended w/ a crime punishable by more than one year. Or the person was pardoned, annulled, sent to rehabilitation on a finding of innocence, regardless of reoffense.
A juvenile conviction can only be admitted if it was of a person other than an accused in a crim case, would be admissible to attack adult’s credibility, and it is necessary to admit the evidence to support a finding of guilt (almost never)
Conviction is admissible subject to 609 even if it can or is being appealed, evidence of appeal may be brought in to rebut it
La porte s’ouvre, défonce, fait entrer une draft d’air frette et s’extirper un gars en détresse.
Monte dans la nuit un hurlement qui prouve que, quoiqu’en disent les théoriciens de
l’évolution, l’homme n’est pas bien loin de la bête. Émile s’effondre, s’écroule, genoux qui
éclatent dans la gravelle et poings qui tendent vers le ciel pour le maudire et à travers les larmes
qui brouillent son regard, voit au loin les étoiles flamboyer en un spectacle astral indécent,
comme pour lui faire croire à son propre discours. Il s’essuie la face en se maquillant
d’hémoglobine et de poussière.
Subset of CC. Arises in joint trials/accomplice confessions that implicate the D. There is an initial presumption that the HS is not admissible. The dec. must be the accomplice and tried jointly with the D. It is admissible against the accomplice because its an OP statement made in their individual capacity. If offered against the D, it will likely fail CC scrutiny (is testimonial) if it furthers the conspiracy (somehow) and falls under 801(d)(2)(e), then it will be non-testimonial. May the trial court permit the jury to hear the accomplice’s out of court confession so long as the court carefully instructs the jury to consider the statement only against its maker?
The P could use the HS solely against the A w/ no Bruton problem if they sever the trials, there are separate juries (only hearing respective admissible evidence), if the accomplice takes the stand and subject to XE, if D had previous chance to XE A’s statement, if statement redacted by P or C to avoid all mention of D’s involvement and only admitted against A (still could be inadmissible in some cases), if D waives right to jury trial and it is heard by the bench, or if they get it to qualify under 801(d)(2)(e).
If the statements pose a substantial threat (were powerfully incriminating) and can’t be disregarded by instruction, plus barred by CC, then there are no jury instructions, no matter how good they are, that can cure this problem.
However, if the confession is redacted to eliminate not only the D’s name but any reference to his or her existence, and it is not clear to the jury that the statement had been altered and they’re not getting all the information, the redaction cures the Bruton problem
Conversely, if the redactions create an obvious and explicit tip off to the jury that one of the other defendants was the deleted person, then the redaction will NOT cure the Bruton problem as the jury will likely fill in the blanks AND it actually highlights that the removed name was probably one of the other defendants. Creates an issue for the defendants who actually were NOT mentioned as well.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provides several key provisions to ensure that children with disabilities receive appropriate education and related services. Let’s explore these provisions:
1. Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE):
Every child with a disability who is eligible for special education must receive educational services at no cost to the parent. Services provided must be appropriate for the individual student, based on factors such as evaluations, classroom performance, and the student’s goals. The public school system must educate all students, including those with profound disabilities, and cover all costs associated with providing an appropriate education.
2. Appropriate Evaluation:
Schools must conduct thorough evaluations to determine a child’s eligibility for special education services. These evaluations help identify the child’s unique needs and guide the development of an Individualized Education Program.
3. Individualized Education Program (IEP):
The IEP is a personalized plan developed for each eligible student with disabilities. It outlines the student’s specific educational goals, services, accommodations, and modifications.
4. Least Restrictive Environment (LRE):
Students with disabilities should be educated alongside their non-disabled peers to the greatest extent appropriate. The goal is to provide an inclusive environment that promotes social interaction and academic growth.
5.Parent and Student Participation in Decision Making:
Parents are equal members of the team that develops the IEP.
Their input is crucial in designing an appropriate educational program for their child.
6. Procedural Safeguards:
IDEA ensures that parents have specific rights, including the right to participate in meetings, review records, and resolve disputes. These safeguards protect the rights of both students and parents.
q: quiver quartz quoted quokka quorum query quench quaint quarry quasar quick quiet quests quarks quince quilt quota quench queens quotes
w: winter wonder walnut whales wished winner warden wealth widget whimsy wallet whiten wisdom wizard waters worker waffle wholly winger weasel
e: effort energy engine eleven empire events extend export escape earthy evolve emails effect exempt enjoys estate emerge echoes embark events
r: river rocky risen ratio racer radar ranges rhythm remain relays revise roving ranch rabbit rubber recent render ripper roamer rugged
t: tiger tango trust tricky tricky trains thrive treats temple trend trophy tunnel tribal timber talent tether truest tablet tarmac thread
y: yearn yellow yearly yarns yachts yonder yogurt yolked yawned yeast yarder yeller yielded yipped yo-yo yahoo yowled yawned youths yawner
u: under upper unity urban usage usher ultra uncut unfair utmost undone usable unmask urgent unfold unlock unused uplift unique upward
i: inner image ivory ideal items icing ingest insect intent indeed invite ignite impact immune impart intake insult inward insure imbued
o: ocean often orbit opera optics origin output outlay outlaw overdo outfit openers outlook onyx oreos orange opaque onsets ornate onward
p: pivot piano pulse proud poster preach person pouch puppy patrol parent pocket palace parade pirate primer powder profits planets packet
a: apple array ample align aroma alone angle agent artist anthem admire arcade attend assert attire asylum awake abroad accord aglow
s: snake stone share storm style shield system spring screen silver seated scripts sector series soared subtle soften signal slender sunset
d: dance doubt drive dream depth dragon desert donor drift dozen danger divide defend design demand decode damage debris daring depot
f: frame flash fruit flame forest fusion filter falcon feast foster fusion fabric fossil finest finger frozen friend forget fringe freely
g: giant ghost grape grain gnome gravel gather gallop gutter gossip gospel growth golden gained garden groom grated grieve groove gravel
h: house heart happy hover honey hinder harsh hybrid hunter hacker herder helmet holder hatred humble honked helmet haloed hamper hinge
j: joker juice joint joyful jungle jacket joyful jumbo jealous jitter joyful jumped jaguar journal jingle jurist jumble joyful jersey junior
k: kitten knight kingdom kiosk kangaroo kidney kicker kicker kneel kindred knack knead knight kneels keeps kneeling knife kilter knitted kicker
l: lemon lucky lunar layer ladder listen lavish lawful latter lonely liberty lively litter lavish lovely longer loosen lucid latent locket
z: zebra zesty zoomed zinger zestful zapped zipped zonked zealot zigzag zeroed zealot zigzag zipper zither zigzag zombie zoning zephyr zestful
x: xerox x-ray xenia xenon xylan xebec xerox xenic xeric xenia xerox xiphoid xenon xray xebec xerox xenon xenial xylem xeric
c: camel chase charm chime cause cello catch carve citrus cosmic corral clutch create cruise clever creamy client civic canary cactus
v: vivid vixen velvet victim victor valley vendor vortex venture versus verify vacant volume vaster varied vowing vibrant viewer vanilla vigour
b: bison brain brush blush brisk button baked bronze butter baffle bottle breezy bitter banner beacon bolder broker briskly bubble bounty
n: noble nexus native narrow nature nightly notion nearby neuron nickel nimble nested napkin nurture notify nature nation needle nodded nectar
m: maple metal melon mixed mimic mortal museum martyr manual migrate muscle muted motion mosaic master memory moment mother merged mentor
Reaching the camps besieging Riverrun, Jaime meets with his cousin Ser Daven. The new Warden of the West spits when he discovers that it was Vargo Hoat who had Jaime's hand amputated, informing him that he offered Tywin to forage for Hoat, but he refused, saying that some tasks are fit for lions, but foraging is best left for goats and dogs.
Daven reveals how much the Freys are vexing him, and even their own uncle Emmon Frey is trying his patience, complaining that he doesn't want his new seat destroyed by a siege. Worst of all is Ser Ryman, who keeps tying a noose around Edmure Tully's neck each morning threatening the Blackfish that he means to hang him unless Riverrun surrenders; however, the Blackfish has long exposed Ryman's threat to be empty.
They speak of Lancel and his abandonment of Darry, which reminds Jaime of the looks on Ami's family's faces when Lancel made his intentions clear. He is all too aware of how Lord Walder deals with those who break Frey marriage proposals.
Daven tells the Lord Commander that their uncle Kevan passed through the camps heading west. He also mentions that Edmure's wife Roslin is pregnant, and oddly she is fond of the dispossessed Lord of Riverrun. He also tells Jaime of Lord Gawen Westerling constantly hounding him to rescue his wife and children, who are being held captive by Ser Brynden Tully.
Jaime is perturbed to learn how little help they are receiving from the bannermen of the Tullys who bent the knee to the Iron Throne after the Red Wedding. He realizes that he must secure Riverrun quickly to put down any threat of rebellion. Starving them out would take far too long.
The next morning, Jaime is considering a parley with Ser Brynden, and recalls when he was a squire of Sumner Crakehall, sent to Riverrun with a message. Lord Hoster seated Jaime next to Lysa, but the young man was far more interested in Lysa's famous uncle, the Blackfish. Within sight of the walls of Riverrun, Jaime has his tent pitched, and soon receives a visit from his Aunt Genna and her husband, Emmon Frey.
Genna is still a Lannister through-and-through, with the wit and sharp tongue also shared by all of Lord Tywin's children. Jaime lies to them that their son Cleos died bravely, and then listens to Emmon's complaints about a siege damaging his castle.
Jaime enlightens Emmon to the fact that he was named Lord of Riverrun, but Petyr Baelish is the Lord Paramount of the Trident. Emmon is outraged to learn he is a vassal of Petyr, but Jaime is unconcerned, as there is nothing he can do about it and Cersei won't indulge someone like Emmon Frey. Genna tells Emmon to leave so she can speak in private with her nephew.
Lady Genna makes it known how she feels about Queen Cersei rearming the Faith (namely that the decision is idiotic, given the trouble the Faith Militant caused the Targaryens before they were finally put down and disbanded), Cersei's choice of councillors, in particular rejecting her brother Kevan as Hand, and Lancel's foolish decision to leave behind his lordship.
When Jaime remarks that he plans to treat with Ser Brynden, his aunt tells him that he would be better off beheading Edmure. But Jaime feels this may further the Blackfish's resolve, and would sooner assault the walls of Riverrun if a parley will not work.
At last, they discuss Lord Tywin, and Jaime asks her if she loved her eldest brother. Lady Genna tells him how it was Tywin, a boy of only ten, who objected to their lord father's decision to wed the seven year old Genna to Emmon Frey, who was not even the heir to the Twins. For that alone, she loved him, stating, "...every little girl needs a big brother to protect her. Who will protect us now?"
When Jaime insists that he is his father's son, his aunt replies, "You smile like Gerion and fight like Tyg, and there's some of Kevan in you, else you would not wear that cloak... but Tyrion is Tywin's son, not you."
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provides several key provisions to ensure that children with disabilities receive appropriate education and related services. Let’s explore these provisions:
1. Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE):
Every child with a disability who is eligible for special education must receive educational services at no cost to the parent. Services provided must be appropriate for the individual student, based on factors such as evaluations, classroom performance, and the student’s goals. The public school system must educate all students, including those with profound disabilities, and cover all costs associated with providing an appropriate education.
2. Appropriate Evaluation:
Schools must conduct thorough evaluations to determine a child’s eligibility for special education services. These evaluations help identify the child’s unique needs and guide the development of an Individualized Education Program.
3. Individualized Education Program (IEP):
The IEP is a personalized plan developed for each eligible student with disabilities. It outlines the student’s specific educational goals, services, accommodations, and modifications.
4. Least Restrictive Environment (LRE):
Students with disabilities should be educated alongside their non-disabled peers to the greatest extent appropriate. The goal is to provide an inclusive environment that promotes social interaction and academic growth.
5.Parent and Student Participation in Decision Making:
Parents are equal members of the team that develops the IEP.
Their input is crucial in designing an appropriate educational program for their child.
6. Procedural Safeguards:
IDEA ensures that parents have specific rights, including the right to participate in meetings, review records, and resolve disputes. These safeguards protect the rights of both students and parents.
Fathers provide United America, Fathers provide United America,
To acquire title to real property by adverse possession not founded upon a written instrument, it must satisfy every each elements: 1) entry is actual and exclusive: you should physically enter the land and not share with other people; 2) use of the land is open and notorious: not secret but occupying as an owner would occupy, for the whole world to see; 3) continuous for the statutory period: without interruption for the statutory period, depending on the nature of the property; The period of adverse possession of one possessor can be tacked to the period of adverse possession of another possessor when there is privity between the two. privity exists when the right of possession is transferred from one to another. 4) adverse and under a claim of right; Main Doctrine: the trespasser had to know that the land in question belongs to someone else; Connecticut doctrine: specific intent is not required but the fact that you believed it to your own property and acted like an owner is sufficient.
The CC only applies when you are dealing w/ HS w/ an exception that is being offered against the accused in crim case. D has no right to confront themselves. If the HS is from a prior trial against the same D, the P has made every effort to produce the dec., and the D has already had the opp. to confront the dec. at the previous trial, the CC is satisfied. If the declarant shows up and testifies at the current trial or hearing, the CC is satisfied regardless of whether the earlier statement was subject to XE.
There are certain hearsay exceptions that can sort of “bypass” the CC issue. If the statement can be admitted b/c it is a dying declaration, it is admissible even if it is testimonial. Statements against a PO that fall under 801(d)(2) are NOT testimonial, and the CC does not bar admission. Additionally, if the D’s conduct made the witness unavailable AND the accused intended to prevent the witness’s trial testimony, they have forfitted CC rights.
For there to be a CC issue, HS must be testimonial. If it is not testimonial, admission does not violate the D’s confrontation rights. If it is testimonial and not otherwise “bypassed,” then the D has a right to confront the witness at trial; if they can’t, the CC will bar admission. There is a strong presumption against a young child’s statement being testimonial. Certain statements are for sure testimonial: affidavits, custodial exams, prior testimony if D was not able to XE, similar pretrial statements reasonably expected to be used by P, briefs, statements taken by PO in the course of interrogations.
To determine whether the statement is testimonial, we use the primary purpose Test: whether, in light of the objective circumstances, the PP of the conversation was to create an out-of-court sub. for trial testimony. Analyzed differently in a “lab report” vs. “real world” situations. Overall, one group of justices seem to always think everything is testimonial, particularly if it is used for law enforcement purposes. (Pro D bias??) The other group of justices seem to always think that everything is not testimonial. (Pro P bias??) Thomas seems to think it is testimonial if it is “solemn and formal.” (Made a rule and stuck with that rule)
In the “real world,” HS which PP is assisting in an ongoing emergency are not test. If the primary purpose is assisting a crim. investigation, yes test. and barred.
The “never testimonial” justices objectively look at (1) the circumstances in which the encounter occurs and (2) the statements and actions of the parties to see if the hearsay statement was made for the primary purpose of assisting with an ongoing emergency. Assessed without the benefit of hindsight. Circumstances to Consider for Primary Purpose: zone of potential Vs, duration and scope, V’s condition, informality in encounter btwn victim and police/police surrogates, statements and actions of declarant and interrogators.
Generally, Thomas says if the statement has an indicia of solemnity and formality, then it is testimonial.
The “always testimonial justices” look at the declarant’s sub. intent when making the statement, not the obj. circumstances. When the threat posed by D ended when the declarant fled the home, only purpose declarant could have believed his stmts to be serving was the prosecution of D.
In lab report cases, the “always testimonial justices” say that a document created solely for an evidentiary purpose, made in aid of a police investigation, is testimonial. If so, when the testifying analysts did not take part in the tests or authored the reports, it is not admissible.
The “never testimonial justices” say that requiring the State to call the technician who filled out a form and recorded the results of a test is a hollow formality, the defense remains free to challenge any and all forensic evidence if someone else was called. Additionally, not testimonial if it was during an ongoing emergency/had no inculpatory prosecutorial purpose.
Thomas: Testimonial/Inadmissible looks to see if the report was formal and affidavit-lite.
For Autopsy Reports, if foul play is unapparent to anyone involved in the autopsy process it is not testimonial.
However, if something does suggest that foul play is afoot then jurisdictions are split. In CA, you evaluate testimonial purpose based on line-by-line examination of autopsy reports (not the report as a whole). CA follows this: focus on the formality and primary purpose of individual statements within an autopsy report
The autopsy report is testimonial when any objective witness/examiner would have expected the stmts to be used in later prosecution. More likely to be testimonial if formal (signed/certified) just like lab reports.
Autopsy reports are not testimonial when they are created for the primary purpose of documenting cause of death for public records and public health, not intended as a substitute for testimony.
the landowner is entitled to possession of the property which is embedded in or attached to the property. If the book was placed upon the table by a transient customer of the place, this property is treated as a mislaid property. In this situation, the finder has not valid claim against the property or the place owner. He is only entitled to possession of lost property against everyone except the true owner or the prior possessor.
This essay attempts to shed light on the driving factors behind this problem before outlining several viable solutions that should be adopted to tackle it
Margaery is fuming at Cersei and her council that the Throne must respond at once to the ironmen's attack on the Shield Islands. Cersei does not appreciate the young queen's tone, and claims that it must fall to Highgarden to retake "these rocks".
Loras Tyrell interjects as his sister seethes, stating that his brothers Willas and Garlan have the men, but not the ships, to win back the islands. He requests that Cersei pull Lord Redwyne's fleet from their siege of Dragonstone, so they may return to gather troops at the Arbor.
The Queen Regent denies his request, implying that the Redwyne fleet would not depart until Dragonstone fell. Knowing that Lord Paxter intended to starve them out, Ser Loras asks leave to lead the assault, and promises Cersei Dragonstone within a fortnight. Pleased by this unexpected "gift", Cersei grants him permission.
Returning to her apartments, Pycelle objects to her sending Loras, but Cersei is hoping the knight will die besieging the walls of Dragonstone; but if not, she would still strike a blow against Stannis.
When she meets Qyburn, he mentions that he has a "champion" to replace Loras should he fall. Cersei is not so sure of Qyburn's "paragon", and informs him that the smiths she hired believe the weight of the armor he requested cannot be borne by a human.
Later, in bed, Lady Taena asks her certain questions; Cersei becomes concerned the woman may report her answers to Margaery. But Taena assures her that all her secrets are safe. However, their chat is interrupted by a guard pounding on her door with word that Falyse Stokeworth begged to see her.
Cersei finds the woman battered, and listens to the tale of her husband's death. After Bronn defeated him in single combat, but before killing him, Bronn forced Ser Balman to confess who put him up to this. Bronn then told Falyse to leave immediately or meet the same fate.
When Falyse told her mother's guards to arrest Bronn, they laughed and told her to listen to "Lord Stokeworth". Fearful that Falyse would spread rumors of Cersei's involvement, Cersei summons Lord Qyburn so that he could take another female subject to his lab in the black cells.
Back in her room, a very inebriated Cersei contemplates how to deal with Bronn, and then begins to fondle Taena, "claiming her rights as queen" the way Robert would do to her when he was drunk.
Upon reaching the Quiet Isle, Brienne and her companions are taken up the path to see the Elder Brother. Brienne mentions to the brother guiding them that she is heading for Saltpans to kill the Hound.
This takes the man aback, but he tells them to speak to their elder. They see a huge horse in their stables, obviously a war horse, who has mauled two of the brothers. On a hill, they pass a huge cloaked novice digging graves. The man appears lame, but they cannot see his face.
The Elder Brother speaks further of the horrible raid on Saltpans, made worse by the fact that Ser Quincy Cox hid behind his castle walls and did nothing to help the villagers.
After dinner, the Elder Brother speaks in private with Brienne. He asks what she seeks in Saltpans, and when she mentions a highborn girl, the elder knows she refers to Sansa. He lets on that it is the wrong Stark she seeks, for the Hound captured Arya.
Shocked that both of Lady Catelyn's daughters may yet be alive, she is equally surprised when he informs her that Sandor Clegane is dead. The Elder Brother has buried his corpse himself, and left the hound's-head helm on the grave. It was some other outlaw who found and wore it when they raided Saltpans.
He goes on to tell her that he took pity on Sandor before he died, and will only say that "he is at rest" when she asks if he is truly dead. The elder remarks that the horse in their stables was the Hound's, Stranger.
The Elder Brother then tells her that he was once a knight who fought for Prince Rhaegar at the Trident. He took several terrible wounds in the battle and fell into the river, yet awoke upon the shores of the Quiet Isle.
He urges her not to be another casualty of this war, and return home. Brienne breaks down and cries, telling him her story, finishing with, "I have to try to save her... or die in the attempt."
Rule 801(c): “Hearsay” means a statement that (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.
A statement is not hearsay if it is offered to prove something that is not dependent on the truth of the matter asserted. For example, it is not hearsay if offered foreffect on the listener, impact, or notice. Not hearsay if inconsistent statements are offered to impeach (show that they are a wishy-washy witness, don’t actually care if the first one was true), legally operative words typically arn’t hearsay.
First hearsay exception you go to is use against a party opponent, a statement may be entered against a party opponent if it was made in their individual capacity, if they affirmed it to be true (can be done by silence if a reasonable person would respond and they had the opportunity to respond), if it was made by someone they authorized to speak for them on the subject, if it was made by their agent or employee, or if it was made by their coconspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy. For 801(2)(2), must establish that the two were in a coconspiracy, the statement was made during the conspiracy and that it furthered it.
2) For a declarant witness’ prior statement, is admissible if it is a (1) inconsistent statement that was made under penalty of perjury (2) consistent statement that is being brought to rebut express/implied charge of fabrication/improper motive or to rehabilitation credibility attacked on other grounds (3) statement identifying a person as someone the dec. perceived earlier.
Exception 3: Present Sense Impression Made while or immediately after event or condition (describing or explaining)
Exception 4: Excited Utterance: statement made in light of an objectively startling event or condition that while dec. was unter the subjective stress of excitement
Exception 5: then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition (1) their own existing state of mind (motive, intent, plan) OR Condition (mental, pain, bodily health) BUT NOT including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed UNLESS it relates to the validity or terms of the dec’s will.
Exception 6: Statement made for medical diagnosis or treatment (1) Made for- and reasonably pertinent to- diagnosis or treatment; and (2) Describes medical history, past or present statements, their inception, or their general cause. Statements to Family Members: if declarant tells a family member so they can tell it to a doctor or nurse, the hearsay exception will apply to the declarant’s statements
Exception 7: Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity Record was made at or near the time by, or from info transmitted by, someone with knowledge. Record was kepot in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling. Making the record was regular practice of that activity All of these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness; and The opponenet does not show that the source or method or circumstances of prep that the record indicates a lack of trustworthiness
Exception 8: Public Records: A record or statement of a public office if: Sets out the office’s activities, A matter observed while under legal duty to report, or In a civ case or against GOV in crim case, factual finding from a legally authorized investigation, and The opponent does not show that the show that the source of the info or other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness
In a criminal case, public records do NOT include a matter observed by law enforcement (a police report) (ok in civ case) Consider when doing confrontation clause questions: if it’s a police report, not admissible period under this exception AND cc blocks
Exception: Records of Docs that Affect an Interest in Property (1) The record is admitted to prove the content of the original recorded doc along with its signing an its delivery by each person who purports to have signed it (2) The record is kept in a public office and (3) statute authorizes recording docs of that kind in that office
Exception: Statements in Ancient Documents: A statement in a document that was prepared before Janurary 1, 1998 and whose authenticity is established
Exception: Statement in learned treatises, periodicals, or pamphlets, The statement is called to the attention of an expert witness on cross examination OR relied on by the expert on direct examination; and the publication is established as a reliable authority by the expert’’s admission or testimony, or by another excerpt’s testimony or by judicial notice If the statement from any of these is admitted, then the statement may be read into evidence but NOT received as an exhibit
Rule 804: Unavailable witnesses Generally, (a) declarant is unavailable and (b) evidence falls under a particular class of testimony. (a) A declarant unavailable if: (1) Exempted b/c privilege applies to the subject matter asked to testify about (2) Refuses to comply with ct order to testify (3) Testifies to not remembering the subject matter (4) Cannot be present or testify b/c of death, physical, or mental illness (5) Absent from trial and the proponent has not been able to procure by process or reasonable means- Dec’s attendance in the case of a hearsay exception under 804(b)(1) or (6); or Dec’s attendance or testimony, in case of exception 804)b)(2)-(4)
804(b)(1): Former testimony: Was given as a witness at a trial, hearing, or lawful depo, whether given during the current proceeding or in a different one, the party against whom the testimony is offered had the opportunity and a similar motive to question the witness at the previous proceeding, and the witness took an oath and was subject to cross-examination at the previous proceeding
804(b)(2): Statement under belief of imminent death In a prosecution for homicide or in a civil case, a statement that the declarant made while believing the declarant’s death to be imminent, made about its cause or circumstances.
Exception 804(b)(3): Statement against interest (1)Reasonable person in dec’s position would have only made the stmt only if the person believed it to be true b/c it was so contrary to dec’s proprietary or pecuniary interest (this applies to all cases); and (2)Supported by corroborating circumstances in crim case that clearly indicate its trustworthiness (does not apply to civil cases)
804(b)(4) Statement of Personal or Family History: Statement about Dec’s own birth, adoption, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, etc. even though Dec had no way of acquiring personal knowledge of that fact; or Another person concerning any of these facts, as well as death if dec was related to the person by blood, adoption, or marriage or was so intimately associated with the person’s family that the dec’s info is likely to be accurate.
804(b)(6). Statement Offered Against a Party that Wrongfully Caused Dec’s Unavailability: Statement is admissible if offered against a party that wrongfully caused, or acquiesced in wrongfully causing, a dec’s unavailability as a witness, and did so intending that result.
