|Learn from the EXPERTS in Evidence Law|
|Tom Mauet, Steve Easton and Irving Younger are giants in evidence law training for several generations of America’s advocates. In this special program, the three combine to present the best of each—with special attention to Arizona’s recent decisions that will effect your daily practice.
Steve Easton’s practice-based advice is built around video highlights (90 of them to be exact) of Younger’s original presentation — still the gold standard for evidence training — but it goes beyond the original with impactful advice on recent developments. Tom Mauet accentuates the presentation with insights into the rules and practice in Arizona courts, sing his trademark approach of viewing evidence as the judge views it! Together, they create a full day of powerful practice development! Younger, Easton and Mauet offer knowledge gained through substantial trial experience in a wide variety of cases.
In this dynamic, practice-based program, Tom Mauet uses his vast experiences as a trial lawyer, law professor and judge to help you organize evidence in the way it should be – from the judge’s perspective.
Mauet frames his presentation by using the three R’s:
He focuses on potential problem areas – raising and making persuasive objections – and highlights his points with memorable flowcharts and examples.
This highly-acclaimed,comprehensive,entertaining program is enhanced by a continuous visual presentation and a detailed evidence manual. You will find useful checklists for immediate implementation into your practice.
The program includes an analysis of FRE502 and its impact on:
For all Arizona attorneys, special consideration will be given to relevant issues surrounding evidence as related to:
ARTICLE 3. PRESUMPTIONS IN CIVIL ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS
Rule 301. Is there a presumption of a gift once a petition for dissolution is filed. Bobrow v. Bobrow, 241 Ariz. 763, 391 P.3d 646 (Ct. App. 2017) (premarital agreement provided wife would not receive spousal maintenance, but after wife filed petition for dissolution, husband voluntarily made monthly loan payments on wife’s vehicle and marital residence where both remained living).
ARTICLE 4. RELEVANCY AND ITS LIMITS
Rule 401. Is testimony about the effect of a U.S. Supreme Court case relevant. Ryan v. Napier, 243 Ariz. 277, 406 P.3d 330 (Ct. App. 2017) (plaintiff sued sheriff’s department for injuries caused when officers used K-9 to apprehend him).
Rule 404(b). When is evidence of another crime, wrong, or act relevant in a civil case. Stafford v. Burns, 241 Ariz. 474, 389 P.3d 76 (Ct. App. 2017) (plaintiffs brought claims for medical malpractice and wrongful death after their son died of methadone overdose; evidence of additional methadone use).
Rule 406. When does other act evidence rise to the level of habit. Rasor v. Northwest Hosp. LLC, 239 Ariz. 546, 373 P.3d 563 (Ct. App. 2016) (plaintiff contended ICU nurse provided deficient care in failing to take steps to minimize bed pressure and in failing to timely discover pressure ulcer), vac’d in part, 242 Ariz. 582, 399 P.3d 657 (2017).
Rules 408 and 613. Is evidence of a consent judgment admissible to establish liability or for impeachment. Phillips v. O’Neil, 243 Ariz. ___, 407 P.3d 71 (2017) (Phillips agreed to consent judgment, in which he waived his right to a trial, admitted his actions violated Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act and a federal regulation, and agreed to pay restitution, attorney fees, and civil penalties).
ARTICLE 5. PRIVILEGES
Rule 501. When does a party waive privilege by conduct. Robert W. Baird & Co. v. Whitten, 2017 WL 4296583 (Ct. App. 2017) (plaintiff brought legal malpractice action).
ARTICLE 6. WITNESSES
Rule 615. When must the trial court exclude a witnesses or preclude review of testimony. Spring v. Bradford, 243 Ariz. 167, 403 P.3d 579 (2017) (during trial, defendant’s attorney provided expert witnesses with transcripts of testimony by plaintiff’s expert witnesses).
Nia v. Nia, 242 Ariz. 419, 396 P.3d 1099 (Ct. App. 2017) (mother contended trial court’s exclusion of her expert witness during father’s testimony prejudiced her ability to present her case).
ARTICLE 7. OPINION AND EXPERT TESTIMONY
Rule 702. Must the trial court hold a pre-trial hearing to evaluate proposed expert testimony. Stafford v. Burns, 241 Ariz. 474, 389 P.3d 76 (Ct. App. 2017) (plaintiffs moved to preclude any expert testimony extrapolating timing of son’s last methadone injection based on son’s post-mortem gastric methadone levels, claiming this was based on “junk science”).
All seminar registrants will receive THREE (3) BONUS handouts with their registrations!
8:00 am — Registration
8: 45 am — Is it Relevant?
10:15 am — Break
10: 30 am — Habit | Policy exclusions | Privileges exclusions
Is it Reliable?
12:00 pm — Lunch on Your Own
1:15 pm — Exceptions-statements | Exceptions-spontaneous statements | Exceptions-records
Is it Right?
2:45 pm — Break
3:00 pm — Impeachment – 7 methods | Rehabilitation | Exhibits-7 groups | Original documents rule
4:30 pm — Adjourn
ASU Law Student, Attorney, Alumni Attorney, Non-ASU Law Student, Community Member, Webcast Lawyers, Webcast Alumni Lawyer