How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Dimitry K., Esq. Your Own Question
Dimitry K., Esq.
Dimitry K., Esq., Attorney
Category: Family Law
Satisfied Customers: 41221
Experience:  I provide family and divorce law advice to my clients in my firm.
Type Your Family Law Question Here...
Dimitry K., Esq. is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

Hi Dimitry, I have a second question. Some detail, Divorce

Resolved Question:

Hi Dimitry,
I have a second question.
Some detail,:Divorce granted in 2007; A Custody/visitation trial was held December 2009 - April 2010. Ex-wife lost and has appealed. She may have a case, judge did not explicitly state grounds for material change in circumstances.

In the appendix of her appellate brief, the ex-wife introduces evidence that:
1. Is pre-judgement (it's from 2006, way before the divorce was granted in 2007)
2. Was not introduced into evidence during the Custody/visitation trial of 2009/2010
We wish to enter a motion to strike this evidence.

What is/are the Connecticut statues to exclude the evidence based on 1 & 2 above
Submitted: 6 years ago.
Category: Family Law
Expert:  Dimitry K., Esq. replied 6 years ago.
Hello and thank you again for requesting me.

The best argument here would be based on section 4-2, or "relevancy" of the evidence. Since you can claim that the evidence is "irrelevant" based on the evidence not being used as it was pre-judgment (it was not part of the decree), and the evidence not utilized before, it is therefore no longer relevant and should be excluded. It should be on page 8 of the link I provided to you. Also review section 4-3 as your fall back by claiming that the evidence, even if otherwise relevant, may simply be prejudicial and therefore invalid.

Good luck.

Edited by Dimitry Alexander Kaplun on 12/1/2010 at 7:06 AM EST
Dimitry K., Esq. and 2 other Family Law Specialists are ready to help you