Emanuel CrunchTime for Evidence (Emanuel CrunchTime Series) 7th Edition

CrunchTime® Your Exam Study Partner, Seventh Edition, by Steve Emanuel focuses on those topics that are important in today’s Evidence courses and includes an abundance of short-answer questions and answers as well as exam tips. This edition has been updated to reflect changes in the law, in casebooks, and topics tested on exams.Students will benefit from: A Capsule Summary that explains the major topics and issues in Evidence Flow Charts and Checklists that illustrate principles and concepts Multiple-choice Questions with answers that build exam-taking skills and confidence Practice Questions and answers feature includes a series of short-answer questions and sample answers to help you test your knowledge of Evidence Exam Tips alert you to issues and commonly used fact patterns found on exams New to the Seventh Edition: New coverage of FRE 106’s “rule of completeness,” by which if one party introduces all or part of an oral or written statement, the adverse party may require the immediate introduction of any other part (or any other statement) that in fairness “ought to be considered at the same time.” Greater coverage of FRE 801(d)(2)(B)’s hearsay exclusion for adoptive admissions, by which a proponent can offer against an adverse party a statement made by a third person, if the proponent shows that the adverse party “manifested that it adopted [the third person’s statement] or believed [it] to be true.” Updated discussion of a special problem that arises in connection with Rule 803(8)(A)’s “public records” exception. Rule 803(8)(A)(ii) expressly says that the public records exception cannot be used by the government to introduce against a criminal defendant a report of a “matter observed by law-enforcement personnel,” but we discuss the controversy about whether this prohibition also prevents such a public report from being admitted under other exceptions (e.g., the exception for business-records). Discussion of a 2023 amendment to Rule 702 on expert testimony, adding the requirement that the expert’s opinion must “reflect[] a reliable application of the principles and methods [used by the expert] to the facts of the case.” Read more