Small claims do-over second hearing

[billyjeangml]

ID

Small claims do-over second hearing. Trying to determine if I can...

present case (leaving out a few items like the defendants previous statements in first hearing)
let them answer my testimony + present their case
then introduce the defendants previous statements in my rebuttable along with evidence they were lying when they made the statements

logic: the defendant is lying like crazy but they are quick and clever. if i introduce in my initial testimony they could just elaborate on the lies. If I wait until rebuttal, then they have been seem lying in person and verified as such.

 

[Zigner]

ID

Small claims do-over second hearing. Trying to determine if I can...

present case (leaving out a few items like the defendants previous statements in first hearing)
let them answer my testimony + present their case
then introduce the defendants previous statements in my rebuttable along with evidence they were lying when they made the statements

logic: the defendant is lying like crazy but they are quick and clever. if i introduce in my initial testimony they could just elaborate on the lies. If I wait until rebuttal, then they have been seem lying in person and verified as such.

There is no reason to start a new thread on the same matter. Here is the link to your original thread: https://forum.freeadvice.com/threads/written-testimony.648801/

 

[Litigator22]

You must be careful in relying on that strategy.

For one if the evidence you intend to reserve for purposes of rebuttal is essential to your proving a prima facie case and you fail to offer it during your case in chief you risk the chance that the court will grant a motion for dismissal or if tried before a jury a directed verdict.

Secondly, if the defendant does not raises the issues relevant to your evidence, you cannot submit it. In other words, a party cannot during rebuttal offer evidence to simply prop up its case in chief. It must have bearing on the evidence offered by the opposing party. *

_______________________________________


[*] "The proper function of rebuttal evidence is to contradict, impeach or defuse the impact of the evidence offered by an adverse party." Under this standard, "Testimony offered only as additional support to an argument made in a case in chief, if not offered ‘to contradict, impeach or defuse the impact of the evidence offered by an adverse party,’ is improper on rebuttal." (Quoting: United States v. Grintjes, 237 F.3d 876, 879 (7th Cir. 2001). Peals, 535 F.3d at 630 (quoting Grintjes, 237 F.3d at 879).

 

[Zigner]

You must be careful in relying on that strategy.

For one if the evidence you intend to reserve for purposes of rebuttal is essential to your proving a prima facie case and you fail to offer it during your case in chief you risk the chance that the court will grant a motion for dismissal or if tried before a jury a directed verdict.

Secondly, if the defendant does not raises the issues relevant to your evidence, you cannot submit it. In other words, a party cannot during rebuttal offer evidence to simply prop up its case in chief. It must have bearing on the evidence offered by the opposing party. *

_______________________________________


[*] "The proper function of rebuttal evidence is to contradict, impeach or defuse the impact of the evidence offered by an adverse party." Under this standard, "Testimony offered only as additional support to an argument made in a case in chief, if not offered ‘to contradict, impeach or defuse the impact of the evidence offered by an adverse party,’ is improper on rebuttal." (Quoting: United States v. Grintjes, 237 F.3d 876, 879 (7th Cir. 2001). Peals, 535 F.3d at 630 (quoting Grintjes, 237 F.3d at 879).

That would be great info to include in the OP's original thread

 

[Litigator22]

That would be great info to include in the OP's original thread

"Great info"?

I suppose if you choose to describe a fundamental procedural rule with such superlatives, that's your business. But it is what it is whether you think it would be different if posted elsewhere as I make no apologies for offending your particular organizational tastes.

What I wrote is in response to a plain, unequivocal and adequately expressed question that needs no clarification requiring you, me or any other reasonably intelligent sapien to look elsewhere.

Fini

 

[Zigner]

"Great info"?

I suppose if you choose to describe a fundamental procedural rule with such superlatives, that's your business. But it is what it is whether you think it would be different if posted elsewhere as I make no apologies for offending your particular organizational tastes.

What I wrote is in response to a plain, unequivocal and adequately expressed question that needs no clarification requiring you, me or any other reasonably intelligent sapien to look elsewhere.

Fini

The point is that this question should have been posted in the OP's other thread regarding the same matter.