Good Essay Example (July 2020 Evidence)
This lesson presents a real, good response to the July 2020 MEE Evidence question. First, read the essay, then listen to the analysis below.
Good Essay
In regards to the first piece of evidence, the trucking company may argue that the internal investigation is inadmissible for public policy reasons. Evidence showing a subsequent remedial action is inadmissible if the evidence is introduced to prove that the defendant was culpable for the actions in the case. A subsequent remedial action is an action to fix or to correct a previous action so that it will never happen again. Public policy wants to encourage subsequent remedial actions so that individuals will fix or correct things that may bring about a similar result. Here, the company perform an internal investigation to decide when the trucker was responsible for the action, leading to the trucker being fired. The company performed a subsequent remedial action to ensure this wouldn't happen again. The plaintiff may argue that the evidence was admissible because it is a relevant piece of evidence that could point to the trucker's liability. However, I do not think the court will see it that way. The court will likely rule the evidence inadmissible.
In regards to the second piece of evidence, the defense may argue that the piece of evidence is in violation of the best evidence rule. The best evidence rule states that a party must introduce the original or a satisfactory copy of the original evidence when the evidence is a legal operative document or the document is key to the testimony of the party. Here, the original document could not be brought forward because it could not be found, but rather a copy provided on a phone was introduced. The plaintiff may respond that a satisfactory alternative is admissible if the original document cannot be found and the copy is not illegible or has been tampered with. The court will most likely allow this evidence in regards to the best evidence rule. While the original could not be located, the copy is satisfactory because it has not been tampered with due to the computer expert's opinion that the photograph has not been tampered with and is not illegible in any way.
The trucking company also may also argue that this evidence is inadmissible hearsay. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted, whether it be words, statements, or gestures. The handwritten letter is a out-court statement offered to prove that the trucker was liable for the tort action. However, the plaintiff may respond that the letter is a statement against self-interest by a party and is therefor admissible as an exception to hearsay. The court will most likely agree that the evidence is admissible under this exception.
Lastly with the letter, the defense may argue that there is no proof that the letter was written by the truck driver, and therefor cannot be authenticated. However, the plaintiff may provide a witness, a handwriting expert, or show the jury the handwriting along with another piece of handwriting by the truck driver to prove that it was the truck driver's handwriting--therefore authenticating the letter. The court will likely allow the letter in if it is authenticated properly.
As for the testimony from the truck driver's doctor, the defense team can argue that the information or conversion is inadmissible because it is privileged as doctor-patient confidentiality. As long as the testimony involves the treatment of the patient involving the matters of this case, the testimony will be inadmissible. Here, the truck driver was seeing the doctor to treat pain with a powerful narcotic. The plaintiff will most likely argue that because the defendant is unavailable to question about the prescription judge, that the doctor is the only other person they can ask to prove that the plaintiff was taking the drug. However, the court will likely rule that any conversation between a doctor and patient is inadmissible due to privilege.
Analysis of the Sample Essay
Transcript
The other answer I want to talk about is also quite good, but maybe not quite to the same level. And that's actually fine for us because it gives us some things to talk about. So this is the answer from the South Dakota test taker.
So, first thing about this one, there's no headings. It's really a good idea to use headings to tell the grader where you're at, what issue are you talking about. But my bigger concern with this answer is that the rules aren't always fully explained. So take a look at the explanation of the hearsay rule, which is at the bottom of page one and the top of page two.
So the test taker does allude to the general rule of what hearsay is, but the key here is not the general rule. It's the exception for statements against interest. And the test taker sees that, but doesn't tell the grader what the rule is for statements against interest.
Instead, it says, "The plaintiff may respond that the letter is a statement against self-interest by a party and is therefore admissible as an exception to hearsay. The court will most likely agree that the evidence is admissible under this exception." The problem is that the test taker didn't really explain how the statement against interest exception works, and I suspect that that probably cost him or her some points.
My last critique is about the counterarguments. Again, this prompt expressly asked for them, so they were more important than normal. So take a look at the counterargument for the subsequent remedial measure analysis, which is the end of the first paragraph.
It says, "The plaintiff may argue that the evidence was admissible because it is a relevant piece of evidence that could point to the trucker's liability." The question here, though, is about the truck company's liability, not the trucker's. That's an initial issue.
The bigger problem is that this counterargument isn't really responsive to the main argument. The subsequent remedial measure rule always excludes relevant evidence. That is just the nature of the so-called public policy exceptions to the admissibility of relevant evidence, and the subsequent remedial measure rule is one of those public policy exceptions. So it would have been better to try to identify an argument that, if it had worked, would have avoided the application of the subsequent remedial measure rule.
So again, this was, for sure, a solid answer. This was certainly a passing answer. And that's the only goal that matters, though it's not as strong as the Minnesota answer that we looked at.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment. You can get a free account here.