when (at what sequential time) is a statement a valid rebuttle that judge must consider

[sallybaxter]

How does that help your case?

establishes that something I am saying happened did happen (or data shows more than likely) and by extension that defendant is lying.

 

[justalayman]

the process is not as you state

First trial is informal small claims with a magistrate. Trial de novo is still small claims but with a judge and is a formal procedure. Except in some very limited actions, an appeal from trial to is to the district court. The decision from the district court can result in it being remanded to small claims or being decided in district court. Decisions of the district court are heard by the Supreme Court.
Since trial 2 is de novo and the proedure is not formal, I don’t see how you would bring anything you suggest into trial #2.

 

[justalayman]

lots of stuff happened but this question was only about one isse (or non issue). the judge made statement "I have the unrebutted testimony" as causal to or influential to her disposition. i argue it was already on record via my testamony so it was not unrebutted testimony. naturally the only place I would argue that would be in Appellate review.

The first trial can be loose and allow hearsay evidence. Trial 2 is a formal procedure and hearsay is deslt with just as in a higher court. The magistrates actions in trial 1 are irrelevant since trial 2 is de novo and the decision of 1 irrelevant. That means how the magistrate came to their conclusion doesn’t matter. It is heard anew.

 

[justalayman]

It is not hearsay but you could only use it if his testimony at the second trial is different from his testimony at the first. If he says the same thing at the second trial then you have no need for his testimony from the first trial.

(This is not to you tm but using your post and adding)

What tm is referring to is using the prior testimony to impeach the person and discredit their veracity. If the testimony is the same, no impeachment. If testimony varies, then the submission of the prior testimony would be entered to discredit the persons statements. That doesn’t mean the new testimony won’t be accepted as true. It just means his testimony should be viewed with skepticism since the testimony about the same issue is different than he had given previously.

 

[justalayman]

OK, maybe not.



How does that help your case?

The transcript of prior testimony isn’t hearsay even if what is within the transcript is hearsay. In other words, the content is still hearsay because it is. The transcript is used only to compare what the speaker said in the first trial with what they said in the second trial and used to determine veracity. It doesn’t prove either statement as being true.

 

[justalayman]

establishes that something I am saying happened did happen (or data shows more than likely) and by extension that defendant is lying.

Actually no it doesn’t. It impugns the honesty of the speaker but it does nothing to support either statement as being true or false.

 

[justalayman]

OH so there are 4 possible hearings? That is news to me. Thanks for pointing that out ( the wording is not very clear)

The wording is very clear if you read the actual Idaho rules of civil procedure. It clearly states that other than a few exceptions an appeal of the small claims trial de novo must be heard by the district court. The district court has a couple options including sending then case back to small claims court


What path tbe case can take is so dependent on the case itself it is impossible to tell you what path yours will take before it happens.

 

[justalayman]

The very last sentence says: A judgment in a small claims appeal can also be appealed to the district court and the judgment of the district court can be appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court.

That means that you get (1) small claims hearing, (2) small claims hearing appeal, (3) appeal to district court, and (4) appeal to Supreme Court.

Unless of course the district court remands the case back to small claims court

 

[sallybaxter]

Great info in this thread thanks for the feedback!