Excellent! So the way I understand it, the evidence from the prior case, in that it is relative to the newer case would not be considered "hearsay" but is admissible evidence? Can you provide me the TN "Code" or at least let me know what I need to look for when going through the TN Codes. I get the impression from the judge, unless I furnish a TN Code showing the information is relevant and not hearsay, he will rule against it so a code to refer to would be helpful. If you don't know it or can't come up with it, can you at least tell me what portion of the TN codes I would look under?
Right. I cannot predict what the other party would argue, so I am uneasy at predicting what specific sub-statute this would fall under, etc. However, TN's hearsay can be found here
, rules 801 through 803.Further what you are saying is that the defendants GOOGLE information that the font used in my citations was not invented until 1994 would be considered credible?
Credible is subjective
. Every piece of evidence is decided on by the Judge or Jury themselves. I cannot tell you whether or not it would be convincing or not... I am sorry. I am merely stating that it is credible on its head unless impeached (challenged) successfully with doubt.And finally, I cannot object to the relevance of the font evidence from Google in my defamation case because it goes to me proving the falsity of his accusations. Please note howeveer that I do have other evidence the will show that his accusations are false but I am concerned that if I object to the relevance of the GOOGLE information in the defamation case, since it is actually relevant to the federal case, the judge may look upon that as I am trying to avoid the issue of the font, even though I have other evidence of the falsity of the defendant's statements. Just trying to clarify and I will not hold you up any longer.
Do not worry about holding me up - this is what I am here for! So ask away, okay?
Here is what I can tell you. And this is true with attorneys as well. However you think
this will happen, it will happen differently. You are attempting to plan out what the other party will say/object to, and how you will respond, and how they will respond, etc. Honestly, it simply does not happen this way. Often, the Judge interjects, or the evidence is not even challenged, or there is some other unforeseen nuance.
YOU CANNOT PLAN FOR WHAT CAN HAPPEN at trial. What you CAN do is know the rules and react accordingly at whatever situation occurs.
But planning out chess moves ahead of time in a suit... any second year law student will tell you "that's just futile because it will no work out like you think it will..."
Gentle Reminder: Please use the reply button to keep chatting, or rate
your rating when we are finished. You may always ask follow ups at no charge after rating.