Dawn’s Statement in Hi-Tech Today
To determine whether the statement posted by Dawn on Hi-Tech Today is admissible under federal law, there are a number of factors that have to be considered. He has to prove that he did not have malicious intentions when posting the statement on the site and show that it was not made to destroy the reputation of Peri’s Computer Cameras (PCC).
Dawn’s statement that “Super Cam Causes Crashes!” is admissible under federal law and can be presented as evidence in court if he is able to prove that it is true. This means he must have a way to show that the Super Cam computer camera is prone to crashes. Since the federal law protects and encourages individuals to give truthful accounts, Dawn’s statement is admissible if verified despite the injuries it might have caused PCC.
Sam’s Statement to Dawn
Sam’s statement may be considered as a logically relevant piece of evidence that is based on hearsay. Logically relevant evidence consists of the statements presented before a federal court, which seek to add consequential facts to a case. Such evidence should not cause undue delay, waste of time, or unfair prejudice.
The statement made by Sam, during his interview with Dawn, claiming that Super Cam crashes computers may be admissible under federal law if it is verified that it was not made in bad faith. Sam is an ex-employee of PCC and so there are chances that he may have made such a statement in bad faith. However, the fact that he had discussed this issue with the management of PCC before, rules out the element of bad faith in his statement. Sam’s statement may be considered as a notice, which he gave to PCC’s management regarding the negative impacts its cameras have on computers. Accordingly, Sam’s statement is also admissible under federal law.
Bella’s Internet Posting
Bella’s posting may be considered as logically relevant evidence. Logically relevant evidence helps to add facts to an ongoing case. The posting may be considered as logically relevant evidence, but only if it does not cause a waste of time, undue delay, or jury confusion. Since Dawn cannot locate Bells, the posting may be considered hearsay.
Bella’s posting that showed her complaining that Super Cam crashed her computer can only be regarded as logically relevant evidence if her reasons for saying that are genuine. Currently, it is difficult to determine what Bella’s motives were when she made the statement since she cannot be found to make a testimony. Her intention could be malicious and so her posting cannot be considered a truthful statement. Therefore, Bella’s posting is not admissible under federal law in its current state.
PCC’s Customer Satisfaction Survey from Claire
The customer satisfaction survey conducted by Claire can only be regarded as admissible under federal law if it was carried out close to the time of the case. The survey must also have been conducted, recorded and maintained by an expert for it to be presented as evidence in a federal court. The survey should abide by the two conditions for it to be used as proper hearsay evidence, which is admissible under federal law.
The customers’ satisfaction survey from Clair, which shows the extent to which the customers of the new Super Cam like this product, is admissible since it was conducted near the time of this case. The survey was also conducted by an independent firm, which proves that its findings represent the real views of PCC’s customers. Therefore, the survey’s findings can be admissible in a federal court of law.