The Impact of Secondary Traumatic Stress
January 29, 2019
American College of Trial Lawyers presents: Damages: It’s all about the MONEY!
February 5, 2019

Evidence for Trial Lawyers 2019

Friday, March 15, 2018 | 8:45 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. | Beus Center for Law and Society | Room 650 |Webcast Avaliable


SKU: N/A Category:
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.


Program Highlights

  • Focus on fundamental concepts that you face in every trial
  • Overlooked nooks and crannies that can help you introduce the proof you need and shield your client from improper material your opponent will try to admit
  • Learn classic and contemporary approaches to applying the rules of evidence from three of America’s best loved experts.

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:

  • Is it relevant?
  • Is it reliable?
  • Is it right?

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.

  • Master the seven methods of impeachment;
  • Define the original documents rule and utilize character traits to your benefit;
  • Revisit the law of evidence in a way that will help you win the evidentiary wars before, during and after trial.

The program includes an analysis of FRE502 and its impact on:

  • subject matter waiver
  • inadvertent waivers made during the discovery process, and
  • the effect of federal court orders on other federal and state court proceedings.

For all Arizona attorneys, special consideration will be given to relevant issues surrounding evidence as related to:


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).


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).


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).


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).


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!

  • Tom Mauet’s ‘Hidden Gems’ in Evidence Law (13 of them!)
  • Tom Mauet’s Compare & Contrast Federal Rules of Evidence v. Arizona Rules of Evidence viewed under Mauet’s ‘3 R’s’
    • Is it Relevant? 3 BIG differences …
    • Is it Reliable?  2 BIG Differences …
    • Is it Right?       3 BIG Differences …
  • LAMINATED ‘FOUNDATIONS & OBJECTIONS’ REFERENCE GUIDE prepared exclusively by Professor Mauet for CLE West
The reality of practicing law in 2018 is that few lawyers get to court regularly or frequently.  Courtroom anxiety is reduced when you have concise reminders of the essentials of trial evidence from the practitioner – and the judge’s – perspective.

Program Agenda

8:00 am — Registration  

8: 45 am  — Is it Relevant?

  • General relevance
  • Special relevance
  • Character traits
  • Other acts

10:15 am — Break  

10: 30 am — Habit | Policy exclusions | Privileges exclusions

Is it Reliable?

  • Hearsay and non-hearsay
  • Hearsay exceptions

12:00 pm — Lunch on Your Own

1:15 pm — Exceptions-statements | Exceptions-spontaneous statements | Exceptions-records

Is it Right?

  • Witness competency
  • Direct examination
  • Experts-9 steps
  • Cross-examination

2:45 pm — Break

3:00 pm — Impeachment – 7 methods | Rehabilitation | Exhibits-7 groups | Original documents rule

4:30 pm — Adjourn

“The State Bar of Arizona does not approve or accredit CLE activities for the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education requirement.  This activity may qualify for up to 6.0 hours toward your annual CLE requirement for the State Bar of Arizona, including 1.0 hour(s) of professional responsibility.”

Additional information

ASU Law Student, Attorney, Alumni Attorney, Non-ASU Law Student, Community Member, Webcast Lawyers, Webcast Alumni Lawyer