Also known as: plaintiffs case-in-chief · plaintiff case in chief · case-in-chief
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The initial phase of a trial during which the prosecution presents witnesses, documents, and other evidence to establish the elements of its charges.
Pierre Poulin faced charges after officers obtained statements without counsel. The prosecution sought to introduce those statements during its case-in-chief to prove guilt. The court excluded them because the Sixth Amendment violation barred affirmative use, though the statements remained available for impeachment if Poulin testified.
Perry Pratt stood trial for firearm possession. The government offered his earlier conviction during its case-in-chief. The court balanced the risk of unfair prejudice against the need to prove an element and limited the evidence to avoid suggesting propensity.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Priya Prasad was prosecuted under a cross-burning law. The state introduced evidence of her conduct during its case-in-chief. The court examined whether the statute reached protected speech and required the prosecution to prove intent to intimidate.
Portia Price faced trial on assault charges. The prosecution attempted to introduce prior misconduct during its case-in-chief. The court excluded the evidence because it served only to show propensity rather than a permissible purpose.
Patrick Phan was charged under a statute banning depictions of animal cruelty. The government presented videos during its case-in-chief. The court assessed whether the statute swept too broadly and whether the evidence satisfied constitutional limits on protected speech.
Pearl Porter repeatedly interrupted proceedings during the prosecution's case-in-chief. The court ordered her removal after warnings. The trial continued without her presence once the judge determined her conduct prevented an orderly presentation of evidence.
A court may grant judgment as a matter of law when the plaintiff has been fully heard and no reasonable jury could find for the plaintiff on an essential element. The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, but speculation or unsupported projections do not create a legally sufficient basis.
A party must make a timely, specific objection on the record stating the ground unless the ground is apparent from context. A general or vague objection fails to preserve the claim for appeal.
Deposition testimony may be used only to the extent the statements would be admissible if the deponent testified live. Hearsay, improper lay opinions, or other evidentiary defects remain grounds for exclusion even when read from a transcript.
No. The plaintiff need only prove the elements of its claim. The defendant must establish the facts supporting any claimed privilege once the issue is raised.
…affirmed. Held: The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should be modified so as not to bar the use in the prosecution’s case-in-chief of evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately found to be unsupported by probable cause. (a)…