Saturday, December 21, 2013


The centerpiece of the legend of the Almanac Trial is Lincoln’s cross-examination of the eyewitness to the killing. Was he really a good cross-examiner? Frederick Trevor Hill, who wrote the first book about Lincoln’s law practice seems to have thought so. Hill said:  

Cross-examination makes greater demands upon a lawyer than any other phase of trial work, and it has been rightly termed an art. To succeed in it the practitioner must be versed in the rules of evidence; he must be familiar with all the facts in his case, and keep them continually in his mind; he must think logically, be far-sighted, tactful, and a keen judge of human nature. All these qualities Lincoln possessed to an unusual degree. … Lincoln the Lawyer, pp. 226, 227. 

At the 1912 convention of the Illinois State’s Attorneys Association, Joseph Benjamin Oakleaf gave a speech in which he described Lincoln's method of cross-examining: One reason why I think he would have been a successful criminal lawyer was his mastery of the art of cross examination, in which he had no equal. If any obstinate witness appeared and was determined to conceal facts which Lincoln desired brought out, Lincoln would neither show resentment nor attempt to coerce the witness but would go after him in a nice, friendly way, questioning about things which were foreign to the point desired, thus placing him at ease, making him forget his antagonistic ideas, and, before he was aware of the harm he was doing his side, the whole story would be laid bare, and then Lincoln would compliment the witness on his fairness and the witness would consider himself a hero. Abraham Lincoln as a Criminal Lawyer, p. 6. 

We have more than Oakleaf’s description of Lincoln’s methods as a cross-examiner. We have the account of James Hoblit, a witness whom Lincoln actually cross-examined. We will let Hoblit tell the story in his own words:

I shall never forget my experience with him. I was subpoenaed in a case brought by one Paullin against my uncle, and I knew too much about the matter in dispute for my uncle's good, The case was not of vital importance, but it seemed very serious to me, for I was a mere boy at the time. Mr. Paullin had owned a bull which was continually raiding his neighbor's corn, and one day my uncle ordered his boys to drive the animal out of his fields, and not to use it too gently, either. Well, the boys obeyed the orders only too literally, for one of them harpooned the bull with a pitchfork, injuring it permanently, and I saw enough of the occurrence to make me a dangerous witness. The result was that Paullin sued my uncle, the boys were indicted for malicious mischief, Mr. Lincoln was retained by the plaintiff, who was determined to make an example of somebody, and I was subpoenaed as a witness. My testimony was, of course, of the highest possible importance, because the plaintiff couldn't make my cousins testify, and I had every reason to want to forget what I had seen, and though pretty frightened, I determined, when I took the stand, to say as little as possible. Well, as soon as I told Mr. Lincoln my full name he became very much interested, asking me if I wasn't some relative of his old friend John Hoblit who kept the house between Springfield and Bloomington; and when I answered that he was my grandfather, Mr. Lincoln grew very friendly, plying me with all sorts of questions about family matters, which put me completely at my ease, and before I knew what was happening, I had forgotten to be hostile and he had the whole story. After the trial he met me outside the court-room and stopped to tell me that he knew I hadn't wanted to say anything against my people, but that though he sympathized with me, I had acted rightly and no one could criticize me for what I had done. The whole matter was afterward adjusted, but I never forgot his friendly and encouraging words at a time when I needed sympathy and consolation. Lincoln the Lawyer, pp. 225, 226.

There's an old proverb about lawyering that goes "When you cross-examine, you don't have to examine crossly." Lincoln exemplified that proverb.

Saturday, December 14, 2013


Ann Murphy’s Gift of Cross-Examination Videos

Professor Ann Murphy (pictured here) has compiled a collection of videos and photographs that can be used to enliven any class presentation on evidence or cross-examination. This collection is valuable not only for evidence and trial advocacy professors but also for attorneys and law students who want to watch how to and how not to cross-examine.

Professor Murphy, who teaches evidence at Gonzaga Law School and whom I met last summer when she was a visiting professor at Seattle University, compiled the materials into a list in the order of the evidence rules (relevance through sentencing with Confrontation Clause material thrown in for full measure).

To watch videos on cross-examination, you can go to the pertinent Rules 608, 609 and 611 on the list to find them. For instance, there are videos of cross-examinations in the Dr. Conrad Murphy case or how not to cross in the State of Arizona vs. Jodi Arias case.

This collection of videos was Professor Murphy’s monumental labor of love when she was operating as she describes it as “my People Magazine Professor of Evidence at its full throttle.” When I contacted Professor Murphy about sharing her Evidence Class Videos, she graciously said yes.

With thanks to Ann Murphy, here is:

Compiled by Professor Ann Murphy, Gonzaga University School of Law

Rule 401Relevance
*U.S. v. Johnny Reid Edwards (former presidential candidate) – Christina Reynolds, friend of Elizabeth Edwards (John Edwards’ late wife) called to the stand to testify about Elizabeth’s knowledge of John Edwards’ affair. (good – Edwards was charged with violating campaign finance laws, conspiracy to do so, and false statements – is this witness’s testimony relevant)
*Illinois v. Drew Peterson – after arrested for the murder of his 3rd wife (4th wife is missing), he is exchanging “love letters” with women from jail – have to suffer through Nancy Grace, but great to show relevance (or lack thereof) -

Rule 403 – Prejudicial effect
*Massachusetts v. Aaron Hernandez - “selfie” – photo, not video (very good)

*U.S. v. Karl Thompson (Police Officer charged with excessive force in killing of Otto Zehm – who was mentally disabled)
“All I wanted was a snickers bar” – last words of victim (very good)
(may use also for 401 Relevance – the fact that Zehm was innocent of any crime; and 606(b)(2) – extraneous influence – the “ticker” on the television set that jurors may have seen).
*State of Florida v. Casey Anthony – scull superimposed on daughter’s face (very good)  (the latter part of the video is on fast forward and not usable – after second 57)
And (Today show discussion of this and parts from the trial) (very good)
*Florida v. George Zimmerman – photos of and texts from Trayvon Martin (not a video) (good)–
*U.S. v. Gilberto Valle (“the Cannibal Cop”) – very good – images that made jurors shift in their seats.
* State of Arizona v. Jodi Arias – photo of severe neck wound. Prosecutor Juan Martinez is questioning a former girlfriend of Travis Alexander (the victim) – and basically asking if she would have done something like this – big objection by Defense counsel. YouTube video has come comments typed on it by the person who posted the video.
*Illinois v. Drew Peterson – death scene photo of Kathleen Savio – does not seem too gruesome.

*U.S. v. Ronald William Brown – convicted of receipt & possession of child pornography – the first clip is from “Young Turks” – a liberal website (so some of you may not want to play it in class) – it shows his super creepy puppet show. He was a Christian puppeteer.
*Colorado v. James Holmes (Aurora theatre shooting) - 3D reconstruction of Aurora theatre shooting – could also use for Authentication.
*Illinois v. Drew Peterson – “cold hearted” reaction to death of 3rd wife Kathleen Savio
*Pretty amazing video of English police officer Dan Pascoe being hit by a stolen car, and then the chase – video is half-way down the page (could use for Authentication too)
*U.S. v. Roger Clemens – Judge declared a mistrial after prosecution showed a video that referred to evidence that had previously been ruled inadmissible -
*State of Florida v. Casey Anthony – testimony about Casey Anthony’s daughter’s remains -
*Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Edward Fleury – Fleury charged with involuntary manslaughter – he ran a gun demonstration and 8-year old Christopher shot himself in the head with an Uzi. Issue was whether jury would see the shot – very good.
*Mouse in a Can – of Monster Energy Drink

Rule 404 – Character
*Florida v. George Zimmerman – Is the Defendant trashing Trayvon Martin? (see video on the left-hand side of this news story (very good) –
*Pennsylvania v. Arthur (AB) Schimer – The “Sinister Minister” - accused of murdering his second wife Betty – State allowed to bring in evidence that his first wife (Jewel) died of blunt force trauma – also allowed to bring in porn on his computer and his affairs. (beginning at about 1:18 – great)
*California v. Dr. Conrad Murray – Character Witnesses for Dr. Murray
*State of Washington v. Kevin Coe (the “South Hill Rapist”) – “signature crime” – see minute 4 to minute 6:35. This entire case is fascinating - - his mother arrested for trying to arrange hits on the judge and prosecutor and State Supreme Court reverses – no hypnotically-refreshed recollection.
*Character Witness – from the old T.V. show “The Odd Couple” – excellent -

Rule 412 – Rape Shield Law
*Ohio v. Trent Mays and Ma’lik Richmond (Steubenville Rape Case) - see printed story (about ½ of the way down) – Judge allowed two of the victim’s “former best friends” to testify she had a reputation as a liar, but did not allow further evidence about her sexual history.
Also – Evidence via Facebook, Twitter, and Text Messages -

Rule 501 - Privileges
*Illinois v. Drew Peterson – Reverend Neil Schori allowed to testify about what Drew Peterson’s 4th wife Stacy (who went missing) told him at a counseling session. No Clergy-Penitent Privilege as not raised. He was allowed to testify about what Stacy told him about what she saw the night Drew’s 3rd wife died, but not what Drew said to her (Marital Privilege). Hearsay exception is Statement Against Interest. (very good)
*Illinois v. Drew PetersonDefense called Stacy Peterson’s (4th wife who disappeared) attorney – she was not there to assert attorney-client privilege (she disappeared) – but Defense opened the door to hearsay statements of Stacy.
*Executive Privilege – Daily Show (comedy) – a little racy language

Rule 606 – Jurors
*Jackson v. AEG, Live jurors – reasons for finding for the Defendant in the case - may comment on deliberations but are not required to do so (O.K.)
*U.S. v. James J. Bulger (“Whitey Bulger – Irish Gangster in Boston) – juror gave interviews after the verdict of guilty, but she’s a bit of a nut (IMHO) -

Rule 608 – Impeachment
*U.S. v. Barry Lamar Bonds – “ex-mistress” Kimberly Bell testifies – cross gets a bit confrontational – very good

Rule 609 – Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction
*State of Wisconsin v. Mark Jensen – tried for murdering his wife – testimony of a “jailhouse snitch.” This case is also good for the Confrontation Clause.

Rule 611(a)Control by Court
*People of the State of California v. Phillip Spector – “Benchslap” of Defense attorney Bruce Cutler (excellent)

Rule 611 – Witnesses (in general)
* Eyewitness ID (a bit long – 6 minutes, but very good – eyewitness identification – faulty)
*Eyewitnesses – this is a video done by our late colleague Margaret Berger – excellent -
*U.S. v. Jeffrey R. MacDonald – this case has been the subject for a movie (Fatal Vision) and a book by Errol Morris (A Wilderness of Errors) – witness told story, then was silent on the stand (whole video is good, but long – you can begin at minute 4:45)

*North Carolina v. Kenan Gay (former UNC football player and law student) – middle of video is eyewitness – but also owner of the bar (bias?)
For more on what different witnesses said (not a video) - (911 call on right-hand side of story)
*New York v. DiGuglielmo (defending father, or murder?) – witness indicated he was pressured by the police – begin at about minute 2:30 -
*North Carolina v. Michael Peterson (convicted of killing his wife Kathleen – the subject of the documentary “The Staircase” – and he had his conviction reversed – awaiting new trial) – SBI Agent Duane Deaver lied about his qualifications – he provided the bloodstain analysis (good) -

Rule 611Direct Examination
* State of Arizona v. Jodi Arias - Taking the “sting” out – ask on Direct before it will be asked on Cross (good) – minute 18:45 through 27:30.
* State of Arizona v. Jodi Arias – Again, taking the “sting” out – ask on Direct before it will be asked on Cross (excellent) – beginning at about minute 41 (note that part of the sound is off – during bench conferences).
*State of Florida v. John Goodman (Polo Tycoon) – three witnesses featured – two for the Defense and one for the State

*California v. Dr. Conrad Murray – Direct of body guard who was the first on the scene at the death of Michael Jackson - excellent
*Florida v. Casey Anthony – really nice to show prosecution case and defense case – from start to finish – a number of witnesses featured (a little long, but great) -
*Florida v. Casey Anthony – Shows direct examination of an expert – a forensic entomologist (testifies about decomposition of Casey Anthony’s daughter – good -
*Utah v. Martin MacNeill – Direct of Rachel MacNeill, daughter of Martin MacNeill – very good -

Rule 611 – Cross Examination
*California v. Dr. Conrad Murray – biggest jerk on cross-examination (great)
*State of Arizona v. Jodi Arias – cross of domestic violence expert called by the Defense – it gets interesting when the Prosecutor argues with the witness and then later revers to a talk she gave on Snow White – there is a relevance objection to that testimony (excellent) – Cross begins at minute 29:40. Some back and forth with witness at minutes 35 and 39, and reference to Snow White at minutes 48 and 56.
*State of Arizona v. Jodi Arias – impeachment (good)

*State of Arizona v. Jodi Arias – cross-examination (bits and pieces of it – confrontational between Prosecutor and Defendant) (good)
*State of Arizona v. Jodi Arias – cross-examination – I believe over the top – objections about being argumentative (good). How NOT to do a cross examination?
* State of Arizona v. Jodi Arias – cross-examination (good) – defendant is crying, but admits to killing the victim. (from the beginning of the video)
*State of Arizona v. Jodi Arias – cross-examination – Rule 611(c) Leading Questions – Argumentative (very good)
(see: at 30 seconds to minute 3; then minute 4:30 to minute 16)
*California v. Orenthal James (OJ)  Simpson – Cross-examination of a police officer by F. Lee Bailey (excellent)
*Utah v. Martin MacNeill – cross of defendant’s oldest daughter (Rachel) beginning at minute 1:28 (prior inconsistent statement and bipolar diagnosis)
*Utah v. Martin MacNeill – cross of defendant’s second-oldest daughter (Alexis) from minute 13 to minute 28 (prior inconsistent statement and issues with her medical school application)
*U.S. v. Johnny Reid Edwards (former presidential candidate) – “star witness” Andrew Young not credible
*U.S. v. Johnny Reid Edwards – witness is Cheri Young, Andrew Young’s wife- great for cross exam
*California v. Dr. Conrad Murray – “star” witness for the Defense held in contempt – Prosecutor David Walgren is one of the best attorneys I’ve ever seen – this is described as “combative” – (or “combustive” hmmm) – excellent -
*California v. Dr. Conrad Murray – this is just so fantastic – hostile witness (Nicole Alvarez) – analysis done by the “Young Turks” – it is hilarious, but a bit racy at the end.
*Florida v. Casey Anthony – some nice cross-examination beginning at minute 1:52 – also good for a Rule 403 issue (bones) at the end of the video -
*Florida v. Casey Anthony - Nice cross and then re-direct (of an expert) – very good -

*Direct Examination and Cross Examination
*State v. Hemy Neuman - Impeachment of Andrea Sneiderman – murder of her husband by her boss – she was later charged and convicted of perjury (State v. Sneiderman) (minute 22 to minute 27:44)

Rule 701 – Lay Witness - Opinion
*Illinois v. Drew Peterson – very short – Defense called Drew’s son – he said he’d “never seen anyone so sad”
*State of Florida v. John Goodman – bartender testifies he did not appear intoxicated
*California v. Dr. Conrad Murray – Defense questioning of Paul Gongaware of AEG, Live - good

Rule 702 – Experts
*Post Mortem – The Death Investigation Crisis in America (Frontline, NPR, ProPublica) (excellent) - (from the beginning up to minute 13:03) – the entire investigation is excellent, but it is 60 minutes.
*The Real CSI (Frontline and ProPublica) (excellent) - (from the beginning to minute 13 – or if you want more on cognitive bias, go to minute 16) or (minute 28 to minute 34 (the Casey Anthony trial – smell in a can) - the entire investigation is excellent, but it is 58 minutes.
*Texas v. Cameron Todd Willingham – executed – bad forensic science of a fire. Excellent –
*Florida v. Casey Anthony – experts gave conflicting testimony and a corpse-sniffing dog (excellent) (up to minute 3:05 – or the entire interview is also good)
*Indiana v. David Camm – two explanations for blood spatter (excellent). Camm was convicted twice – the convictions were overturned twice and on October 24, 2013 he was found not guilty in the third trial and released.
* Jackson v. AEG, Live Michael Jackson severely addicted to prescription drugs- (no expert testimony in this clip – case was not televised – but good coverage on the news) (very good)
*Marissa Tomai in My Cousin Vinnie – speaking about cars and tire tracks (very good)
*Kansas v. Brett Seacat – expert on hormone taken by wife and handwriting expert (good)
*Utah v. Martin MacNeill – whether blood draw meets Frye standard – this clip indicates that the Judge is disallowing the evidence, but actually he reserved his ruling asking for a better foundation (very good, except Nancy Grace)
*Pennsylvania v. Arthur (AB) Schimer The “Sinister Minister” – great computer animation accident reconstruction. (beginning at about 2:09 – excellent)
*Eyewitness problems (great one)
*Expert Witness on Suggestibility – “mousetrap study” – (from “Crime and Punishment” – from actual trials) – excellent

*Problems with Expert Witness (Dr. Steven Hayne – Mississippi)
and (Mississippi Supreme Court finds Hayne’s work (and the work of another prosecution expert) “woefully short of the requirements for admissibility).
*Problems with Expert Witness (Annie Dookhan – Massachusetts)
*”Wind Turbine Syndrome” – The Colbert Report (comedy)
*Florida v. George Zimmerman – forensic analysis of 911 call – ultimately the Judge did not allow expert analysis on this issue (good) -
*Blood Spatter – from Dexter television show
*Arizona v. Ray Krone (the “snaggletooth killer”) – two convictions for murder based upon bite mark evidence – DNA later exonerated him (excellent)
*California v. Brandon McInerney – “gay panic defense”
*Handwriting analysis – does not seem this would pass Daubert or Frye – Not a video – photos – and weird.

*Civil case – Deposition of an Expert who seems not able to apply the math he used – and Accident Reconstructionist – rather humorous.
*Florida v. Casey Anthony – “talking heads” after the verdict of not guilty – good discussion of odd expert witness evidence (the “smell of death”) and the jury. A bit long and attorney Linda Kenney Baden had been on the Defense team, so it is a bit one sided.
*Example of part of the Standard Field Sobriety Test – the HGN test (Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus) – interesting -

704 – Experts – Opinion on an Ultimate Issue
*California v. Dr. Conrad Murray – Direct Exam of an Expert – see at minute beginning 37 and continuing – the “ultimate issue” question is at minute 40 (excellent)
*California v. Dr. Conrad Murray – Direct and Cross Exam of Experts – see at minute beginning 3:21 through about 6:45 (excellent – but slightly chopped up)
*California v. Dr. Conrad Murray – Direct of Expert–excellent – six “extreme deviations from the standard of care” – evidence of “gross negligence.”

Rule 801 – Hearsay
*Illinois v. Drew Peterson - Juror explains how hearsay testimony was critical to verdict.

801(d)(1) – Declarant Witness’s Prior Statement
*California v. Dr. Conrad Murray – Conrad Murray’s girlfriend Nicole Alvarez - excellent
*U.S. v. Karl Thompson – Police officer charged in beating of man (officer not charged with murder – only with excessive force and lying) (up to about minute 1:30 – reference to Officer Moses)

801(d)(2) – An Opposing Party’s Statement – Not Hearsay
*Jackson v. AEG, Live – examination of co-CEO of AEG, Live Paul Gongaware – email (very good)
*California v. Dr. Conrad Murray (and talking about Jackson v. AEG, Live) (about 4 minutes – lots of statements of party opponents and also a bit of a 911 call) (good) Also good statements of Jackson – undoubtedly not for truth of the matter asserted.
*Accidental 911 call made by defendant (very good)
*Photo – what 20,000 pages of “inappropriate emails” looks like –
*Tennessee v. James Washington – gave “deathbed confession” to guard James Tomlinson – confessed to killing Joyce Goodener. He did not die and recanted the confession. It’s a statement of a party opponent and not hearsay, but a good one to talk about a dying declaration – it would not be a dying declaration because it did not concern the circumstances of his own death
*Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Gerald Sandusky (really these are statements of party opponents for the administrators at Penn State) – could also use for Authentication
*Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Monsignor William Lynn – evidence of destruction of evidence by priests – conspiracy and pleas
*Lowering the Bar – from website (humor) – photo – not video (good) -
*People of the State of California v. Phillip Spector – Opening Statement by Asst. Dist. Attny. Alan Jackson – chose not to use some of the statements of Spector – left Defense without much of its opening argument. Also – mentions a “history” of violence – Rule 404 (good)
*Florida v. James “Bob” Ward (millionaire who shot his wife Diane) – weird behavior and different stories about what happened. Very good
*Illinois v. Drew Peterson – Stepbrother of Drew Peterson testifies about Drew Peterson statements about 4th wife Stacy Peterson (who disappeared) – good.
*From The Smoking Gun – Statement? Photo – not video -
*Dennis Rodman – kicked cameraman – this case settled. Dennis’s statement did not help him too much…

803(2) – Excited Utterance  
*Dueling 911 calls - great
*George Zimmerman – arrested at home of girlfriend Samantha Scheibe – not yet charged -
Here is Samantha Scheibe’s 911 call.
And on this website, on the right-hand side – you can click to hear George Zimmerman’s 911 call

803(6) – Business Records
*State of Florida v. John Goodman (Polo Tycoon) – bar tab, also great for a defendant testifying and for a complaint by juror that prosecutors were “making faces.” (excellent)

803(8) – Public Records – Police Report
*Florida v. George Zimmerman – police report – not video

804(b)(2) – Dying Declaration
*Marvin Harrison – A wide receiver for the Indianapolis Colts – was suspected of firing shots at Dwight Dixon. Prosecutor did not press charges. Dixon filed a civil suit. Then Dixon was shot and killed – gave a statement to the police as he was being wheeled to the operating room [Harrison may indeed be charged – see: This story is great – it is a bit long – 13 minutes. If you start at minute 8:50, you’ll get the gist of it. At minute 10, it mentions the dying declaration. Also good for Confrontation Clause purposes.
*803-804 – Hearsay Exceptions
*Illinois v. Drew Peterson – convicted of killing his third wife Kathleen (his fourth wife Stacy disappeared) – Hearsay statements of both Kathleen and Stacy (although there was an Illinois law passed specifically to get the statements in, ultimately the State did not use “Drew’s Law.” (excellent) (minutes 28 through 36 – and the entire clip is good)
*Illinois v. Drew Peterson (Pre-trial Hearing) – testimony of psychic who had talked to Drew’s 4th wife; and testimony about how the investigation into his 3rd wife’s death was botched. Good.

Rule 901 - Authentication
*Forensic Linguistics (imbedded video on left-hand side) - excellent
*Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Michael Bakerphoto – not video (could also use for Rule 403)
*Alabama v. David “Gabe” Watson – (the “Honeymoon Killer”) – his wife died on their honeymoon at the Great Barrier Reef – she drowned – compelling picture –
*California v. Orenthal James (OJ)  Simpson – not a video, but great for the photos of the Bruno Magli shoes -
*Florida v. Patrick Evans (wealthy Jabil executive convicted of shooting his wife and boyfriend) – the shooter’s voice was on the 911 call made by his wife – very good
*Montana v. Jordan Linn Graham (“newlywed murder at Glacier National Park) – near the end of the video – mention of a “black cloth,” and a fake email.
*How to fake Twitter, Facebook, Texts – the guy is a bit odd, but a great education on how to do it and how easy it is -
*U.S. v. Barry Lamar Bonds – Judge makes a ruling on Greg Anderson (Bonds’ friend who refused to testify against him) – it looks as though the government will not be able to get into evidence the urine. At trial, the government used “chain of custody” (with a whole lot of witnesses) and actually got the urine sample into evidence – he was convicted. But not of steroid use – but rather of obstruction of justice.
*Just an amazing truck crash
*Calcagno v. Springfield (Rick Springfield – the singer and former soap opera actor) – a photo, not a video – authenticating a buttocks
*Video of Florida teen (Maffa?) – high on synthetic marijuana - called K2 – good

*Georgia Tech Phi Kappa Tau – emails – good –
*Massachusetts v. Aaron Hernandez- with gun?

*Rule 1101(d)(3) – Applicability of the Rules – Sentencing
*Ohio v. Thomas M. (TJ) Lane – school shooting – family members spoke and TJ showed up in a “Killer” t-shirt and gave the families the finger. Good, but a bit off the beaten track.

6th Amendment – Confrontation Clause
*Ricardo Woods, Eyeblink testimony to identify Defendant (excellent)
*Maryland v. Jermaine Hailes - Another eye-blink case: (uncertain whether 6th Amendment was raised – Judge is deciding whether testimony is allowed on reliability and dying declaration).
*Illinois v. Drew Peterson – statement of 4th wife (who disappeared) to a neighbor – good one for whether it’s testimonial.

*Alaska v. Mechele Lineham – “letter from the grave”- after Appeals Court overturned the conviction, she was never retried -

Opening and Closing Statements (not evidence, of course)
*New Jersey v. Dharun Ravi (Tyler Clementi suicide case)
*Virginia v. George Huguely (UVA Lacrosse player – murder of girlfriend) – prosecutor cried in closing statement (odd) and characterized his client as a “stupid drunk” – who lacked intent.

Longer Videos
*Illinois v. Drew Peterson – Dateline – 42 minutes
*State of Arizona v. Jodi Arias - Dateline
*Many videos of Arizona v. Arias case:
*Highlights of California v. Dr. Conrad Murray - excellent
*Eyewitness – the case of North Carolina v. Ronald Cotton – exonerated by DNA – now speaks across the country with his accuser – amazing case