On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

California Trial Evidence 2016

Released on: Nov. 2, 2016
Running Time: 06:08:05

Mastering the complexities of California evidence often can be the difference between winning and losing at trial. Recent case law and statutory developments in the law of evidence render this mastery critical in modern litigation and trials. This program is designed to give you the most up-to-date information on California evidence standards. The panelists represent top-flight trial attorneys and judges who will provide winning strategies for your practice.

Our expert faculty will lead you through the most pertinent and tricky trial evidence topics, such as:

  • Crediting and discrediting witnesses
  • Winning with demonstratives
  • Making the most out of your motions in limine
  • Expert witness evidence
  • Overcoming obstacles to admissibility, and
  • Judges will teach how to win the evidence game at trial

Civil and criminal trial attorneys who want to hone their evidence skills and stay on top of recent developments in the field should view this program. This program will be highly valuable for newer attorneys trying their first few trials as well as for experienced courtroom advocates who will stay abreast of recent developments. Plan to view just for the invaluable tips from our experienced faculty.

Lecture Topics [Total time 06:08:05]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.


  • Program Overview and Introductions* [00:03:25]
    Patricia L. Peden
  • The End Goal—Crediting and Discrediting Witnesses [01:05:00]
    Matthew J. Jacobs, Thomas J. Brandi
  • Effective Use of Demonstrative Evidence [01:00:40]
    Julie Salamon, Karen Kimmey
  • Making the Most Out of Your Motions in Limine [00:57:10]
    Richard C. Darwin, Michael K. Ng
  • The Use of Experts at Trial [01:01:10]
    James R. Batchelder, Jennifer B. Bonneville
  • Overcoming Obstacles to Admissibility [00:59:40]
    Hon. Laurel Beeler, Robin G. Workman
  • The Most Common Evidentiary Errors Seen From the Bench and How You Can Avoid Them [01:01:00]
    Mark R. Conrad, Honorable Tracie L. Brown, Honorable Jeffrey S. White

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Some Thoughts on A Game Plan for Direct and Cross Examination
    Thomas J. Brandi
  • Principles for Getting a Witness to Tell You Things She Doesn’t Want to Say (PowerPoint slides)
    Matthew J. Jacobs
  • Demonstrative Evidence: Getting It Ready and Admitted
    Julie A. Salamon, Thomas B. Mayhew, Thomas B. Mayhew, Shannon M. Nessier
  • Demonstrative Evidence (PowerPoint slides)
    Julie A. Salamon, Thomas B. Mayhew
  • Motions In Limine
    Michael K. Ng, Richard C. Darwin
  • All About the Experts: Rules Governing the Admissibility and Disclosure of Expert Testimony and Cross-Examination of Experts
    James R. Batchelder
  • Communicating with Expert Witnesses, Preparing for the Daubert Challenge, and Experts and Class Actions
    Laurie Edelstein
  • Overcoming Obstacles to Admissibility: The Practitioner’s Perspective
    Robin G. Workman
  • Overcoming Obstacles to Admissibility: The Practitioner’s Perspective (PowerPoint slides)
    Robin G. Workman
  • Marking and Admitting Exhibits
    Tracie L. Brown, Jeffrey S. White
  • Elements of Admissibility of Evidence
    Jeffrey S. White, Tracie L. Brown
  • Tips from the Bench (PowerPoint slides)
    Jeffrey S. White, Tracie L. Brown

Presentation Material


  • Preparing Your Witness
    Thomas J. Brandi
  • Principles for Getting a Witness to Tell
    Matthew J. Jacobs
  • Demonstrative Evidence
    Karen Kimmey, Julie Salamon
  • California Trial Evidence 2016: Motions in Limine
    Richard C. Darwin, Michael K. Ng
  • Expert Witnesses- Privileges, Challenges and Best Practices
    Jennifer B. Bonneville
  • Evidence for Smarties
    Hon. Laurel Beeler
  • Overcoming Obstacles to Admissibility: The Practitioner's Perspective
    Robin G. Workman
  • Tips from the Bench
    Honorable Tracie L. Brown, Honorable Jeffrey S. White
Chairperson(s)
Patricia L. Peden ~ Shareholder, LeClairRyan
Speaker(s)
James R. Batchelder ~ Ropes & Gray LLP
Hon. Laurel Beeler ~ United States Magistrate Judge, United States District Court, Northern District of California
Jennifer B. Bonneville ~ Of Counsel, Steptoe & Johnson LLP
Thomas J. Brandi ~ Partner, The Brandi Law Firm
Honorable Tracie L. Brown ~ Judge, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco
Mark R. Conrad ~ Partner, Conrad & Metlitzky
Richard C. Darwin ~ Shareholder, Buchalter Nemer
Matthew J. Jacobs ~ Partner, Vinson & Elkins LLP
Karen Kimmey ~ Partner, Farella Braun & Martel LLP
Michael K. Ng ~ Partner, Kobre & Kim LLP
Julie Salamon ~ Senior Counsel, Arguedas, Cassman & Headley, LLP
Honorable Jeffrey S. White ~ United States District Judge, United States District Court, Northern District of California
Robin G. Workman ~ Principal Owner, Workman Law Firm, PC
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

 

Related Items

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

California Trial Evidence 2016 Patricia L Peden, LeClairRyan
 
Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.