Professor Glesner Fines speaks with a 1L student about how to brief a case and the relationship between briefing a case and writing an exam.

This podcast is the second in a series from the author that accompanies her book “Materials for Law School Success,” available for free from CALI’s eLangdell® Press.

Professor Glesner Fines has written numerous CALI lessons on a variety of legal topics. Her lessons are listed here.

Professor Glesner Fines speaks with an entering law student about the factors that influence law school success, including resources, attitude, cooperation and challenge.

This is the first in a series of podcasts from Professor Glesner Fines that accmpanies her eBook, “Materials for Law School Success,” available for free from CALI’s eLangdell® Press.

Professor Barbara Glesner Fines’ numerous CALI lessons are listed here.

Her faculty biography can be found here.

What is the difference between comparative negligence and assumption of the risk?

This Lawdible helps students learn to recognize the differences between the two most important  affirmative defenses to a negligence claim — assumption of the risk and comparative negligence.  Professor Fordham works through a hypothetical that highlights the differences between assumption of the risk and comparative negligence.  He then explains a narrow, but essential exception to the rule for assumption of the risk, often referred to as “primary” assumption of the risk. Professor Fordham shows how primary assumption of the risk is different from secondary assumption of the risk and suggests keys to applying these affirmative defenses.

Professor Brigham Fordham is an Associate Professor at Phoenix School of Law.

How can an opponent impeach a hearsay declarant, when the declarant does not appear in court? Find out in this Lawdible.

When hearsay is introduced against a party, that party may impeach the Declarant using any techniques that could be used against a witness who testifies live in court. For example, evidence of past convictions related to truth-telling may be introduced, to show that jury that the declarant has a character trait of untruthfulness. Similarly, opinion and reputation evidence about that character are admissible.  Proof of bias in any form can be introduced to show that the declarant may have had a motive to shade his or her statements in a particular direction.

With regard to inquiring about past bad acts relevant to truth-telling, that technique can be used against a live-in-court witness, but probably cannot be used where a hearsay declarant is sought to be impeached, since the declarant is not on the witness stand to hear and answer a question about his or her past acts.

Here’s Professor Best’s faculty bio.

As an attorney, you will often receive funds from a client before you even perform any services for a client. Many attorneys require payment of a retainer or an advance for future services. What’s the difference between the two? What legal ethics issues do retainers and advances create? Professor Barbara Glesner Fines of the University of Missouri – Kansas City will explains the issues in this Lawdible.

Professor Glesner Fines’ faculty biography can be found here.

We don’t have a specific CALI Lesson to pair with this Lawdible. But Professor Glesner Fines is a prolific CALI Lesson author and has written many Professional Responsibility CALI Lessons listed here.

Evidence about a person’s character for impeachment purposes gets treated differently from evidence about a person’s character to show how he or she acted out of court. What are these differences and why does the law have them?

When a party wants to show how someone acted out of court, using character evidence for that purpose is generally prohibited. But when a party wants to show that a witness likely lied while testifying, character evidence about the witness’s character trait for truthfulness is allowed.  In the first situation, character evidence to show conduct out-of-court, risks of prejudice against the defendant are high, and the vagueness of character evidence is particularly problematic.

When character evidence is offered to show whether a person lied on the witness stand, the risks of prejudice against the defendant are reduced since the witness may not be the defendant. Also, the probative value of the character evidence is likely to be high, since the trait – truthfulness – is clearer than other traits such as violence, and the conduct to which the trait is linked, testifying, may be less complex than much other conduct in the world.

CALI Lesson Pairings: Impeachment and Rehabilitation of Witnesses and Character Evidence Under Federal Rules.

Here’s Professor Best’s faculty bio.

In this Lawdible, Prof. Leslie Yalof Garfield of Pace Law School discusses the principles of causation, a concept addressed in several first year courses. Professor Garfield points out the difference and similarities between proving causation in Tort and proving causation in Criminal Law.

The discussion clearly highlights how the two concepts should be treated in each class.

CALI Lesson pairings: Causation in Fact (Torts) and Causation (Criminal Law)

Here’s Professor Garfield’s faculty profile.

Why does so much evidence about a defendant’s character get admitted, even though the law supposedly rejects the propensity inference? This question highlights a fundamental problem in evidence law – the shaky rationale for the anti-propensity rule, and the complications surrounding the many exceptions to the rule. Professor Arthur Best will address these issues and more in this character evidence Lawdible.

Apparently, even though there are big risks of prejudice and imprecision when we admit character evidence to show action in conformity with that character, some common-sense feelings about that evidence support the use of some major exceptions to the prohibition.

A defendant may introduce evidence of his or her own good character and may introduce evidence about an alleged victim’s character for aggressiveness, for example. The prosecution may respond with additional character evidence.  The combination of a general prohibition and a variety of exceptions suggests that the law may have only moderate allegiance to the basic anti-propensity rule.

CALI Lesson pairing: Character Evidence Under Federal Rules

Professor Best’s faculty profile is here.

Writing a memo on a state law issue involves understanding the nature of jurisdiction and judicial hierarchy.  In case selection, the researcher is confronted with selecting the best cases that explain the law as well as selecting supplemental cases that provide for the best factual analogies.

In this Lawdible, Professor Karin Mika of Cleveland-Marshall College of Law gives advice on how to make the best case law selection when writing a memo covering a state law issue.

CALI Lesson Pairing: Decision Point: State or Federal?

Here is Professor Mika’s faculty profile.

Both the fifth and the sixth amendments’ rights to legal counsel may apply when authorities are seeking information from a suspect. But how are these rights different? And in what situations do either of these rights apply?

In this Lawdible, Suspect’s Right To Counsel, Professor Edwin Butterfoss of Hamline University gives you a very straightforward  checklist for tackling the legal questions involved with a suspect’s right to an attorney.

CALI Lesson Pairings: Miranda I: Custody, Interrogation and Waiver and Miranda II: Assertion of the Rights, Exceptions, and Other Limits both written by Professor Butterfoss.

You can find Prof. Butterfoss’ Hamline faculty bio here.