Livia Esther Greenwald

**** *** ******

Baltimore, MD 21215

410-***-*****

ac7hoh@r.postjobfree.com

October 24, 2018

To Whom it May Concern:

As you can see from the attached resume, received my Bachelor’s Degree from National Paralegal College in March of this year where I graduated summa cum laude.

I am currently teaching in the afternoons and I am not in the position to seek full-time employment at this time. However, I would appreciate you considering me for part-time positions which will enable me to use my qualifications to help your firm with your paralegal and administrative needs.

I have extensive experience working in a fast-paced environment. I have worked for a psychologist transcribing reports and have always maintained confidentiality. I currently teach computer applications including Microsoft Office Suite and QuickBooks in Bais Yaakov High School. In the past, I used my extensive administrative experience to help establish the Northwest Citizens Patrol, a volunteer community safety organization, where I served as a scheduler and dispatcher as well.

I possess good communication and writing skills and have attached a writing sample to my current resume. I will be glad to furnish further samples if requested as well as a copy of my college transcript. I am a quick learner and pick up new skills easily.

Thank you in advance for your consideration. I look forward to meeting with you at your convenience to discuss how I can help your organization as a team player to further achieve the goals of your organization.

Sincerely,

Livia Greenwald

Encl.

Livia Greenwald

5904 Key Avenue ac7hoh@r.postjobfree.com

Baltimore, MD 21215 410-***-****

Summary of Qualifications

Graduated from National Paralegal College, BS in Legal Studies, summa cum laude (GPA 4.0). Experienced legal and administrative support professional, bookkeeper, and teacher. Familiar with legal terminology and court procedures.

Computer Skills

Proficient in use of Lexis, Windows 10, Microsoft Office Suite (including Word, Excel, Access, Outlook, PowerPoint), QuickBooks, and Quicken.

Professional Experience

Research and Writing

Researched and wrote over 40 memoranda and letters on various legal issues while attending National Paralegal College.

As a paralegal in the collection department of a legal firm, composed small claims complaints and filed them under the direction of an attorney in small claims court. Attended bankruptcy hearings and wrote detailed memoranda regarding the hearings for attorney and helped determine what further actions to take.

Wrote instruction manual for employees in the accounts receivable department and trained the A/R and A/P departments how to use a new computer bookkeeping system.

Composed memorandum to school administration detailing the benefits and pitfalls of expanding their computer program and detailing where and what programs would be beneficial for students. Recommendations were adopted and instituted.

Wrote year end reports detailing problems and recommending solutions at the conclusion of each school year.

Researched and wrote explanations for school exhibit within tight time constraints.

Edited papers and helped prepare documents for submission for publication.

Edited and marked student papers.

Office Administration and Support

A/R Bookkeeping

QuickBooks

Utilized word processing software, databases, spreadsheets and accounting programs and produced various reports needed by office administrators.

Increased office efficiency by training employees in use of computer programs and computers in general. Trained employees in use of new phone system.

Detail Mastery and Organization

Set up a daily schedule of a community patrol organization instrumental in helping to protecting the community.

Handled and resolved questions and complaints in A/R bookkeeping department of a private school.

Own and administer a sole-proprietorship which provides services such as transcription, printing, mailing, billing, advertising and other secretarial services for legal, medical and other businesses.

As a teacher handled attendance and general classroom records as well as computing grades for mid-term and year end reports.

Communication Skills

Advocated and listened to parents and students and spoke with administrators and resolved various issues that arose during school year.

Guided and supervised students in producing three exhibits by conducting research, writing and editing and paying attention to small details to help ensure the success of the project.

As a volunteer dispatcher was involved in direct and timely communication and collaboration with the police and the public; used attention to detail skills and communication skills in organizing fundraising dinners for various charitable organizations.

Education

National Paralegal College, Phoenix, AZ March 2018

Bachelor of Science in Legal Studies, summa cum laude

Community College of Baltimore, Baltimore, MD June 1976

Associate of Arts, Paralegal Certificate, cum laude

Work History

Bais Yaakov High School, Baltimore, MD 1992-Present

Teacher/Administrative Assistant/A/R Bookkeeper

Davis Consulting, Baltimore, MD 1991

Part-Time Administrative Assistant

William Simon, Esquire, Cleveland, Ohio 1979

Paralegal

Blades and Rosenfeld PA, Baltimore, MD 1976-1979

Legal Secretary/Paralegal

MEMORANUM

TO: The Honorable Judge Michael C. Jones

FROM: Livia Greenwald

DATE: July 14, 2016

RE: Evidentiary issues with the admission of evidence and with the defense presented in Twelve Angry Men

FACTS:

The defendant was on trial for the stabbing and murder of his father. He is 19 years old and is being tried as an adult. There were evidentiary issues that arose during the jury deliberations that are addressed below.

ISSUES:

1. What evidentiary issues are presented in this case?

During the discussion in the jury room the following evidentiary issues became apparent:

Certain evidence should not have been admitted by the judge. There seems to have been character evidence that was given in court but it was given as fact and not necessarily as a witness’s opinion. Additionally, evidence was given about the troubled past of the defendant which was not necessarily relevant to this particular case. There is a question raised as to whether this evidence should have been allowed. If this evidence was allowed, there should have been limiting instructions given to the jury about this evidence.

There was also evidence given about the propensity of the defendant to act in accordance with his homicidal tendencies. Was this character evidence offered as an opinion or was it presented as expert testimony? Were there objections to the admission of this witness testimony by the defense? This may be relevant in deciding whether or not this testimony should have been admitted in the first place.

2. How did the jury address these issues?

The jury seemed to give undue weight to evidence that was not factual but opinion. It appears that the opinion testimony was interpreted as fact by the jurors and was instrumental in their decision of whether to return a verdict of innocence or guilt. It also appears that, initially, the jurors did not understand that the defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty. The opinion evidence was considered as fact and the initial response of the jurors was to convict the defendant without looking at the facts presented at trial.

It appears that the jurors were never cautioned how to use the evidence presented and it also appears that the defendant’s lawyer did not do a very good job in cross examination of the witnesses to show inconsistencies with witness testimony. He also did not appear to object to the admission of certain testimony.

During the course of the jury deliberations, the jury was forced to see that certain issues that should have been raised during cross examination were not raised. The jurors were forced to confront the facts and see the inconsistencies in the downstairs neighbor’s testimony as well as the testimony of the lady across the street.

The jurors were also alerted to the inference that because the defendant was raised in a slum, there was a greater propensity to commit violent and criminal acts. This issue was raised and resolved without the judge’s ruling on the admission of this evidence or the issuance of a limiting directive. The same was true with the past criminal record of the defendant.

3. What Rules of Evidence apply?

There are many different rules of evidence that apply to what testimony is allowed at a trial. The issues and the Rules of Evidence that apply to the issues mentioned above will be discussed in the Rule section below.

RULE:

The most relevant issue is determining what testimony should have been admitted or not admitted. It is evident that the defendant did testify that he was at the movies at the time of the murder and he did admit to purchasing a knife the night that the murder took place. He also admitted having an argument with his father that night before leaving the house.

In their deliberations, the jurors discussed the propensity of the defendant to commit murder. There was character evidence to show that the defendant was put into protective custody and was in and out of jail for sundry unrelated issues. There was also evidence which introduced his previous misdemeanor charges and his expertise in using a knife for stabbing. This evidence was probably presented by the prosecution to prove intent and motive for the murder.

In People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264 (N.Y. 1901) the rule pertaining to the admission of previous criminal records was stated quite clearly.

To bring a case within this exception to the general rule which excludes proof of extraneous crimes, there must be evidence of system between the offense on trial and the one sought to be introduced. They must be connected as parts of a general and composite plan or scheme, or they must be so related to each other as to show a common motive or intent running through both. . . ..

Hence, on a trial for homicide, it is permissible to prove that the accused killed another person during the time he was preparing for or was in the act of committing the homicide for which he is on trial. And, generally, when several similar crimes occur near each other, either in time or locality, as, for example, several burglaries or incendiary fires upon the same night, it is relevant to show that the accused, being present at one of them, was present at the other . . . . Id. at 305.

. . . If the court does not clearly perceive it, the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt and the evidence rejected. The minds of the jurors must not be poisoned and prejudiced by receiving evidence of this irrelevant and dangerous description. . . .

There is, indeed, no room for discussion in regard to the general principles upon which evidence is admitted to show that a defendant is guilty of other felonies or misdemeanors than the one upon which he is tried. Id. at 306.

People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264 (N.Y. 1901) went on to list the exceptions of when evidence of a previous criminal nature could be admitted.

Generally speaking, evidence of other crimes is competent to prove the specific crime charged when it tends to establish (1) motive; (2) intent; (3) the absence of mistake or accident; (4) a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the others; (5) the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial. Id. at 294.

In a criminal trial, this evidence would probably have been admitted under FRE 404(b) which allows evidence to be admitted for the purpose of proving motive, intent, opportunity, plan and knowledge. It would be used to build a case that the defendant did know what he was doing and planned to commit the crime.

It is obvious that the defendant did testify about his past and his father’s nature and the prosecutor elaborated on the past in his cross examination.

In People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383 (N.Y. 2004), the court examined the issue of prejudicial evidence and propensity and the effect that the admission of such evidence has on a jury. In this case the court ruled on whether the previous criminal record of a defendant should have been admitted and, if it was admitted, what the limiting instruction should have been to the jury.

On the one hand, the trial judge told the jurors that the uncharged murder confessions were admissible only to allow them to assess the truthfulness of defendant's statement regarding the Matos killing. On the other hand, the court instructed them not to consider the truthfulness of the statements concerning the other murders. . . .

The evidence of the uncharged murders could provide a useable measure of credibility only if the jury could rely on their credibility. The court's instruction disavowed the evidence even for this purpose. As such, there was plainly no use for this evidence other than to show defendant's propensity to commit the crimes charged. . . .

Although the Majority downplays the prejudice flowing to defendant from the introduction of his confessions to the three uncharged murders, the prejudice here was overwhelming. It is difficult to imagine what could be more prejudicial to a defendant in a capital murder trial than evidence that on separate occasions he had killed three people in addition to the person he stands accused of killing. . It is likewise difficult to imagine that a jury could possibly avoid using the evidence of defendant's uncharged crimes, for which he had yet to be brought to justice, to conclude that he had such a violent character that he likely committed the crimes charged. Id. at 452.

The Court went on to say:

Under the circumstances presented here, the risk of unfair prejudice flowing from the introduction of this evidence substantially outweighed its probative value. Id. at 453.

It is well settled that evidence is relevant if it has any "tendency in reason to prove any material fact" . . relevant evidence is, moreover, admissible at trial unless barred by some exclusionary rule. Even where relevant evidence is admissible, it may still be excluded in the exercise of the trial court's discretion if probative value is substantially outweighed by the potential for prejudice. . . When a party "opens the door" during cross-examination to excluded evidence, the opponent may seek to admit the excluded evidence in order to explain, clarify and fully elicit the question that has been only partially exposed on cross-examination. . . The opening door theory https://advance.lexis.com/document/teaserdocument/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=92edddc0-f348-4c53-908a-cfb3e0b6dc4c&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A4BSN-NDJ0-0039-426H-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A4BSN-NDJ0-0039-426H-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=9096&pdteaserkey=h6&ecomp=14qhk&earg=sr10&prid=2c0b648b-9cb8-4ef7-8966-98a3fd69dea3must necessarily be approached on a case-by-case basis" People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d at 424-425.

Another case, People v. Mead, 149 Misc. 2d 757, 566 N.Y.S.2d 481 (N.Y. County Ct. 1991), highlights an exception to the hearsay rule, when hearsay evidence can be used to show the intent of a defendant. The Court stated:

Evidence that the defendant was involved in almost identical conduct, with the same companions, within 20 days of the subject incident, will therefore be clearly relevant to the issue of his intent at the time of the crimes charged in the instant indictment. Id. at 759.

. . .the question is whether that prejudice outweighs the probative nature of the evidence. In balancing these factors, the court must assess the prosecutor's need for the evidence and whether the evidence is offered on the People's direct case or otherwise. Id.

The court in this case found that “the evidence was directly probative of the defendant's motive and intent, and found further that its probative value outweighed the potential for prejudice” and the evidence was correctly admitted. Id. at 761.

Another case that addressed the issues of whether a witness was an expert and could be relied upon to present relevant evidence was People v. Smith, 172 N.Y. 210 (N.Y. 1902). This case stated:

It is a well-established principle of criminal law that the rejection of competent and material evidence, or the reception of incompetent and improper evidence, which is harmful to a defendant and excepted to, presents error requiring a reversal. Such a ruling affects a substantial right of the defendant, even though the appellate court would, with the rejected evidence before it, or with the improper evidence excluded, still come to the same conclusion reached by the jury. The defendant has the right to insist that material and legal evidence offered by him should be received and submitted to the jury, and to have illegal and improper evidence, which may be harmful, excluded, and to have the opinion of the jury upon proper evidence admitted in the case, and upon such evidence alone. Id. at 231.

The court opinion in Smith stated:

We are of the opinion that much of the evidence received by the court under the defendant's objections and the exceptions which we have already discussed, was incompetent and improper, and as such rulings cannot be properly held to have been harmless, it follows that the judgment must be reversed. Id. at 244.

USCS Fed Rules Evid R 401(a)(1)4 states:

Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.

(2) Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case. The following exceptions apply in a criminal case:

(A) a defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it;

(B) subject to the limitations in Rule 412, a defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may:

(i) offer evidence to rebut it; and

(ii) offer evidence of the defendant’s same trait;

USCS Fed Rules Evid R 403 states:

The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

USCS Fed Rules Evid R 404(b)(1) states that evidence of crimes or other wrongdoing is not admissible to show that a person acted in accordance with his pertinent trait on a particular occasion. USCS Fed Rules Evid R 404(b)(2), however, states that character or traits can be admitted to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identify, absence of mistake or lack of accident or if requested by a defendant in a criminal case. However, USCS Fed Rules Evid R 406 says that a person’s habit can be admitted to prove that the person acted in accordance with his habit.

ANALYSIS:

As we can see from the cases above as well as the Federal Rules of Evidence cited above, certain evidence can be admitted for specific reasons and this evidence can be admitted to prove issues of intent, knowledge and for other purposes, even if this evidence would be normally excluded. Different rules apply to cross-examination and if the defendant “opens the door” in direct examination, the matters testified to can be rebutted on cross examination and the witness giving the testimony can be impeached.

The character evidence and the witnesses that testified to the arrest record of the defendant in Twelve Angry Men was clearly prejudicial in tilting the minds of the jurors towards believing that he could commit murder. In most of the juror’s minds, this evidence showed the propensity of the defendant’s character to commit criminal crimes especially the murder.

Additionally, the character evidence clearly led to the jury’s conclusion that the defendant had a criminal nature. This opinion testimony, however, was not backed by any extrinsic or non-extrinsic evidence showing that he committed any crimes as serious as murder aside from the misdemeanor charges mentioned above. There was no expert testimony about the propensity of the defendant to commit a homicide.

As shown above in People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383 (N.Y. 2004), the court held that:

The evidence . . . could provide a useable measure of credibility only if the jury could rely on their credibility. The court's instruction disavowed the evidence even for this purpose. As such, there was plainly no use for this evidence other than to show defendant's propensity to commit the crimes charged. Id. at 452.

Other rulings in New York State courts have also shown that some evidence is so prejudicial that the evidence should never be admitted because of the substantial unfair prejudice of the evidence. In People v. Smith, 172 N.Y. 210 (N.Y. 1902), the court stated that if prejudicial evidence is admitted and objected to this could very well prejudice a jury and could be grounds for reversal of a jury decision because proper evidentiary rules were not followed.

We are of the opinion that much of the evidence received by the court under the defendant's objections and the exceptions which we have already discussed, was incompetent and improper, and as such rulings cannot be properly held to have been harmless, it follows that the judgment must be reversed. Id. at 244.

Other court decisions in New York State have agreed with USCS Fed Rules Evid R 403 which states that the court can exclude relevant evidence if “its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice, . . . misleading the jury. . .” This was shown in the case of People v. Mead, 149 Misc. 2d 757, 566 N.Y.S.2d 481 (N.Y. County Ct. 1991).

. . .the question is whether that prejudice outweighs the probative nature of the evidence. In balancing these factors, the court must assess the prosecutor's need for the evidence and whether the evidence is offered on the People's direct case or otherwise. Id. at 759.

It is difficult to say what evidence was admitted without objection, admitted after objection or admitted without a judge giving a limiting instruction. However, judging from the jury discussion, many of the issues mentioned above were probably relevant during the trial. If the jury would have returned a guilty verdict, many of those issues could have been raised upon appeal and the verdict may have been reversed.

Some of the evidence proffered was clearly unrelated to the murder charge and should not have been admitted as testimonial evidence under USCS Fed Rules Evid R 401. The character trait that he was angry and hostile and came from a slum clearly played a part in the jury’s decision making processes. It is not clear how this evidence was introduced, but if the defendant’s attorney introduced evidence about the defendant’s father, then the prosecutor could have used this testimony to question the defendant’s witnesses about the same trait in the defendant.

It is highly unlikely that the defendant would present evidence about his jail time, but if the prosecutor was trying to show that the defendant had motive or propensity to act a certain way because his father treated him a certain way, then this evidence should have been objected to by the defense attorney. It may have been admitted, but at least it should have warranted an objection.

If the defense attorney allowed the defendant to testify on his own behalf, then the defense opened the door to any propensity evidence and any evidence about the victim. However, pursuant to USCS Fed Rules Evid R 104(d), a defendant in a criminal case does not become subject to cross-examination about other non-related issues that he did not testify to under direct examination.

USCS Fed Rules Evid R 404(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Procedure clearly states:

Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

Obviously, some evidence was introduced about the crime record of the defendant to show that he acted in accordance with his character trait because he committed other crimes. This should not have been admissible if the prosecutor introduced this character evidence on direct examination of the defendant.

However, it could have been introduced to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, etc. according to USCS Fed Rules Evid R 404(b)(2), which states:

(2) Permitted Uses; Notice in a Criminal Case. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. On request by a defendant in a criminal case, the prosecutor must:

Hearsay evidence was admitted regarding the character of the victim of the crime. If the defense introduced the evidence that the father, the victim, was a gambler, was in and out of jail, and never held a job for more than six months, the prosecution could have used an “open door” to attack the defendant pursuant to USCS Fed Rules Evid R 404(a)(2)(B).

CONCLUSION:

There were many issues that could have been raised in an appeal of the trial in Twelve Angry Men. Without a transcript from the trial it is very difficult to ascertain when objections were made or not made but a guilty verdict would have been easy to appeal. However, the court clearly did not give limiting instructions to the jury on how the evidence should have been used in their deliberations.

How the Defense Failed

By not ascertaining the time element and not making sure that the lady across the street could see without glasses, the defense attorney could easily have lost this case. The fact that she had to see through the passing train’s windows was also a factor that should have been introduced at trial. There should have been expert witnesses who could impeach her testimony about when and what she saw.

The defense also failed to present expert testimony that the man living downstairs could not have seen the defendant exiting the building via the stairwell in the time that he claimed that he heard the voices upstairs and then was able to get to his front door. These two pieces of evidence were clearly the center of the prosecution’s case. By not rebutting the evidence and impeaching the witnesses, the defense clearly failed to defend their client adequately.

Contact this candidate