ANATOMY OF A MURDER TRANSCRIPT ANSWERS, PART 3

If you have any other possible answers, email them to me and I'll add them.

41. Irrelevant character evidence.

Not enough personal knowledge to enable her to make rational conclusion about the integrity of people in general who do not adhere to church doctrine.

42. No foundation of personal knowledge.

43. Improper opinion because not based on any particular perception of the witness. She does not have enough information to make a rational conclusion.

44. Character (pattern of behavior).

45. Asking about a habit (always), not just a tendency, so admissible under Rule 406.

46. Character evidence. Asking about a pattern of behavior.

Irrelevant and confuses the issue. Manion is on trial for killing Quill and whether Laura sat in his car a year ago is of no probative value except to try to get the jury to speculate about her character.

47. Character (pattern).

Irrelevant whether she wears panties on other occasions and unfairly prejudicial because it involves sex.

Probably totally irrelevant whether she was wearing panties on that night. It does not help prove or disprove any issue in the case.

48. Character.

49. Lack of personal knowledge as to why Manion acted as he did.

Character (trying to establish pattern of violent jealous rages)

Improper to prove character by specific acts (Rule 405).

50. Inadmissible character evidence, 404(b) (specific act offered to insinuate that Manion, not Quill, beat Laura on night of crime).

Irrelevant and confuses issues under 403 because no foundation that this prior event happened under substantial similarity of conditions.

51. No personal knowledge what another was thinking.

52. No foundation for expert opinion. No testimony that he reached his conclusion in a reliable manner, based on adequate data, following reliable procedures.

53. Improper legal opinion outside the scope of the witness's expertise as a doctor.

54. No foundation for expert opinion. No testimony that he reached his conclusion in a reliable manner, based on adequate data, following reliable procedures

55. No personal knowledge what another was thinking.

56. No foundation these convictions occurred within past 10 years.

No foundation that all these were adult felonies. Given witness's testimony that he was in reform school as a juvenile, it is likely that one or more of these convictions was actually a juvenile adjudication

57. Offered to impeach credibility to show poor memory and or tendency to lie because it contradicts his earlier testimony that he had no adult criminal record.

58. Impeaches the witness for bias in favor of the state and self-interest.

59. Improper lay opinion; requires an expert. This is a specific conclusion not within common experience.

60. Witness has testified to making adequate observations to support the opinion. This is the kind of rational common opinion people draw. The opinion form will be helpful to the jury because degrees of "convenience" are hard to articulate.

61. Insufficient authentication. They are apparently being offered as the very panties Laura was wearing that night, but the witness is unable by either direct or circumstantial evidence, to establish that.

No testimony that they are still in the same condition as they were the night of the crime. No evidence that their torn condition arose the night of the crime, especially since they have since been in a rag bin.

[Note: Not hearsay. Labels aren't statements of fact].

62. Irrelevant whether this witness thought Quill raped Laura.

No foundation she had any basis in personal knowledge for the opinion

[Note: Not hearsay. Statement of her state of mind.]

63. Improper opinion. No foundation she had any basis in personal knowledge for the opinion.

Irrelevant what witness thinks about the source of the panties.