Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de875> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de875 RegisterActionDate "2021-06-01" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de875 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall. The parties have submitted the deposition of Norman Venegas for this Court's review of their various objections and designations. Venegas has no memory of the testimony and therefore Plaintiff seeks to admit his prior sworn testimony. "Under Rule 804(a)(3), a declarant is unavailable if he or she 'testifies to a lack of memory of the subject matter of the declarant's statement.'" Schindler v. Seiler, 474 F.3d 1008, 1012 (7th Cir. 2007). When a declarant is unavailable as a witness, a deposition "offered against a party who had... an opportunity and similar motive to develop it by direct, cross-, or redirect examination" is not excluded by the rule against hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1). Venegas testified at a suppression hearing years ago which was used during the deposition to both refresh his testimony and to impeach his testimony. The parties dispute whether the impeachment testimony and the refreshing of recollection testimony should be provided as prior testimony. The Court over-rules both sides objections and permits the testimony designated by both sides. The impeachment testimony and the refreshing recollection testimony is part of the testimony and is relevant to show this witness' memory, bias, and state of mind. The parties shall omit the objections in order for the testimony to be cleaner. Mailed notice (lk, ) (Entered: 06/01/2021)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de875 AdministrativeID "876" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de875 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.