(Again from the CLE) – Miscellaneous Notes on Evidence:
1. Statements made by persons seeking medical diagnosis which are pertinent to diagnosis are not excluded by the hearsay rule.
2. On appeal, attach documents relied on by the trial court when taking judicial notice of those documents.
3. Communications during mediation may be admissible in subsequent proceedings when used as part of traditional contract defenses. (For example to explore the true meaning of the mediation agreement or to prove fraud, mistake, or duress). They aren’t admissible for purposes of, say, showing liability for the original dispute under mediation.
4. Interpreters have to be put under oath too when interpreting for a witness.
5. A jury’s verdict can’t generally be discredited by the subsequent testimony of a juror. Courts want litigation to have an endpoint; and you don’t really want to give jurors an opportunity to change their minds after the fact.
6. Indiana has a tendency to be liberal in its admission of opinion evidence by skilled lay people or scientific experts.
7. Nurses generally can’t qualify as experts to testify regarding medical causation and medical standards of care. But, the Court of Appeals has opened the door to the possibility that a well-qualified nurse can be qualified as an expert to testify on, for example, whether a healthcare provider – such as a nursing home – has conformed to the applicable standard of care.
8. Medical or hospital records must be authenticated to be admissible as business records.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
communications from whom? the mediator? a litigant? an attorney for a litigant?
confidential statements aren’t admissible. neither are offers.
your faculty presenter needs to be more precise or bold concerning his/her materials/opinions.
and i am aware of the recent appellate opinion that started in Howard Circuit Court.
Horner v. Carter (pdf) is the case.