Sistema Universitario Ana G. Méndez Florida Campuses ... · CRIM 370 Law of Evidence 3 Prep. 2005. Marga I. González-Montes, J.D. Rev. 2008. Iván Rivera, M.A., J.D. Prontuario

Sistema Universitario Ana G. Méndez

Florida Campuses

School for Professional Studies

Universidad del Este, Universidad Metropolitana, Universidad del Turabo

CRIM 370

Law of Evidence

Ley de la Evidencia

© Sistema Universitario Ana G. Méndez, 2008

Derechos Reservados.

© Ana G. Méndez University System, 2008. All rights reserved.

CRIM 370 Law of Evidence 2

Prep. 2005. Marga I. González-Montes, J.D. Rev. 2008. Iván Rivera, M.A., J.D.

TABLA DE CONTENIDO/TABLE OF CONTENTS

Páginas/Pages

Prontuario .............................................................................................................. 3

Study Guide ......................................................................................................... 10

Workshop One ..................................................................................................... 16

Taller Dos ............................................................................................................. 19

Workshop Three .................................................................................................. 22

Taller Cuatro ........................................................................................................ 25

Workshop Five/Taller Cinco ............................................................................... 28

Appendix A/Anejo A ............................................................................................ 32

Appendix B/Anejo B ............................................................................................ 34

Appendix C/Anejo C ............................................................................................ 37

Appendix D/Anejo D ............................................................................................ 40

Anejo E/Appendix E ............................................................................................ 42

Appendix E1/Anejo E1 ........................................................................................ 44







Appendix F/Anejo F ............................................................................................. 52



Prontuario

Título del Curso Evidencia

Codificación CRIM 370

Duración Cinco Semanas

Pre-requisito Ninguno

Descripción

En este curso estudiaremos las reglas de evidencia y el proceso de litigio.

Comenzaremos con una descripción general de los elementos básicos del litigio

civil y criminal. Seguiremos con un repaso de las Reglas de Evidencia Federal y

del Código de Evidencia del Estado de Florida. Usaremos decisiones de los

tribunales para ilustrar como se utilizan las reglas de evidencia en el litigio civil y

criminal. Se pretende que el estudiante de Justicia Criminal adquiera los

conocimientos básicos sobre la materia de Evidencia y su aplicación en los

tribunales.

Objetivos Generales

Al completar este curso el/la estudiante:

1. Conocerá lo que son las reglas de evidencia, su propósito y cómo éstas rigen

los litigios.

2. Identificará los elementos esenciales del litigio civil y el litigio criminal.

3. Conocerá qué son las objeciones y cómo son utilizadas durante el juicio.

4. Identificará y podrá explicar los papeles que desempeñan los participantes

en los procesos judiciales.

5. Conocerá los conceptos: “peso de la prueba” y “presunciones” y cómo se

aplican en los litigios.

6. Conocerá la diferencia entre evidencia relevante y evidencia no relevante.

7. Conocerá y distinguirá los siguientes conceptos: autenticación e

identificación.

8. Conocerá las diferencias entre un testigo lego y un testigo experto.

9. Conocerá los privilegios según las reglas, y cómo éstos limitan la

admisibilidad de evidencia



10. Conocerá lo que es prueba de referencia y sus excepciones.

Texto y Recursos

Park, R.C., Leonard, D.P., & Goldberg, S.H. (2004). Evidence Law: A Students

Guide to the Law of Evidence as Applied in American Trials (2nd ed.). West

Publishing.

Stopp, Margaret T. (1998). Evidence Law in the Trial Process. Kentucky:

Thomson Delmar

Referencias y Material Suplementario

Best, A. (2001). Evidence Examples and Explanations. (5ta ed.) New York: Aspen

Fisher, G. (2004). Federal Rules of Evidence. Minnesota: West Law

Goode, S. & Wellborn, O. et al. (2002). Courtroom Evidence Handbook. (5ta. ed.)

Minnesota:West Thomson

Gram, M. (2003). Federal Rules of Evidence, in a Nutshell. (6ta ed.) Minnesota:

Thomson-West

Mueller, C. & Kirkpatrick, L. (2000). Evidence Under the Rules. (4ta ed.) New

York: Aspen

Nemeth, C. (2001). Law and Evidence: A Primer for Criminal Justice, Criminology,

Law, and Legal Studies. New Jersey: Prentice Hall

Park, L. & Goldberg, S. (1998). Evidence Law. Minnesota: Thomson-West

Shapiro, B. (1991). Beyond Reasonable Doubt and Probable Cause-Historical

Perspectives on the Anglo-American Law of Evidence. California: University

of California

Evaluación

La evaluación del grado de aprovechamiento del estudiante consiste en varias

medidas que tienden a determinar el nivel de los conocimientos adquiridos por el

estudiante durante el curso. Dicha evaluación será basada en el número de

puntos otorgados al estudiante en las actividades asignadas para cada taller. Se

otorgarán puntos por los trabajos entregados, informes orales en clase, trabajo en

grupo, participación en clase y examen final. La nota final será una combinación



de todos los puntos acumulados por el estudiante durante el curso. Usando dicha

fórmula la distribución de la nota final será como sigue:

1. Trabajos escritos 20%

2. Informes orales en clase 20%

3. Trabajo en grupo y participación en clase 20%

4. Examen final 20%

5. Portafolio 20%

Componente Bilingüe

El proceso de evaluación incluirá medidas para determinar la competencia del

estudiante para desarrollar ideas para resolver problemas eficientemente en inglés

y español. Se usará un esquema de 70% para evaluar contenido y 30% para

evaluar la competencia bilingüe del estudiante.

Descripción de las Normas del Curso

1. Este curso sigue el modelo “Discipline-Based Dual-Language Immersion

Model®” del Sistema Universitario Ana G. Méndez, el mismo está diseñado

para promover el desarrollo de cada estudiante como un profesional

bilingüe. Cada taller será facilitado en inglés y español, utilizando el

modelo 50/50. Esto significa que cada taller deberá ser conducido

enteramente en el lenguaje especificado. Los lenguajes serán alternados

en cada taller para asegurar que el curso se ofrece 50% en inglés y 50% en

español. Para mantener un balance, el módulo debe especificar que se

utilizarán ambos idiomas en el quinto taller, dividiendo el tiempo y las

actividades equitativamente entre ambos idiomas. Si un estudiante tiene

dificultad en hacer una pregunta en el idioma especificado, bien puede

escoger el idioma de preferencia para hacer la pregunta. Sin embargo, el

facilitador deberá contestar la misma en el idioma designado para ese

taller. Esto deberá ser una excepción a las reglas pues es importante que

los estudiantes utilicen el idioma designado. Esto no aplica a los cursos de



lenguaje que deben ser desarrollados en el idioma propio todo en inglés o

todo en español según aplique.

2. El curso es conducido en formato acelerado, eso requiere que los

estudiantes se preparen antes de cada taller de acuerdo al módulo. Cada

taller requiere un promedio de diez (10) horas de preparación y en

ocasiones requiere más.

3. La asistencia a todos los talleres es obligatoria. El estudiante que se

ausente al taller deberá presentar una excusa razonable al facilitador. El

facilitador evaluará si la ausencia es justificada y decidirá como el

estudiante repondrá el trabajo perdido, de ser necesario. El facilitador

decidirá uno de los siguientes: permitirle al estudiante reponer el trabajo o

asignarle trabajo adicional en adición al trabajo a ser repuesto.

Toda tarea a ser completada antes del taller deberá ser entregada en la

fecha asignada. El facilitador ajustará la nota de las tareas repuestas.

4. Si un estudiante se ausenta a más de un taller el facilitador tendrá las

siguientes opciones:

a. Si es a dos talleres, el facilitador reducirá una nota por debajo

basado en la nota existente.

b. Si el estudiante se ausenta a tres talleres, el facilitador reducirá la

nota a dos por debajo de la nota existente.

5. La asistencia y participación en clase de actividades y presentaciones

orales es extremadamente importante pues no se pueden reponer. Si el

estudiante provee una excusa válida y verificable, el facilitador determinará

una actividad equivalente a evaluar que sustituya la misma. Esta actividad

deberá incluir el mismo contenido y componentes del lenguaje como la

presentación oral o actividad a ser repuesta.

6. En actividades de grupo el grupo será evaluado por su trabajo final. Sin

embargo, cada miembro de grupo deberá participar y cooperar para lograr

un trabajo de excelencia, pero recibirán una calificación individual.



7. Se espera que todo trabajo escrito sea de la autoría de cada estudiante y

no plagiado. Se debe entender que todo trabajo sometido esta citado

apropiadamente o parafraseado y citado dando atención al autor. Todo

estudiante debe ser el autor de su propio trabajo. Todo trabajo que sea

plagiado, copiado o presente trazos de otro será calificado con cero (vea la

política de honestidad académica).

8. Si el facilitador hace cambios al módulo o guía de estudio, deberá

discutirlos y entregar copia a los estudiantes por escrito al principio del

primer taller.

9. El facilitador establecerá los medios para contactar a los estudiantes

proveyendo su correo electrónico, teléfonos, y el horario disponibles.

10. EL uso de celulares está prohibido durante las sesiones de clase; de haber

una necesidad, deberá permanecer en vibración o en silencio.

11. La visita de niños y familiares no registrados en el curso no está permitida

en el salón de clases.

12. Todo estudiante está sujeto a las políticas y normas de conducta y

comportamiento que rigen al SUAGM y el curso.

Nota: Si por alguna razón no puede acceder las direcciones electrónicas

ofrecidas en el módulo, no se limite a ellas. Existen otros motores de

búsqueda y sitios Web que podrá utilizar para la búsqueda de la información

deseada. Entre ellas están:

www.google.com

www.altavista.com

www.ask.com

www.excite.com

www.pregunta.com

www.findarticles.com

www.telemundo.yahoo.com

www.bibliotecavirtualut.suagm.edu

www.eric.ed.gov/

http://www.findarticles.com/

http://www.telemundo.yahoo.com/

http://bibliotecavirtualut.suagm.edu/

http://www.eric.ed.gov/



www.flelibrary.org/

El/la facilitador(a) puede realizar cambios a las direcciones electrónicas y/o

añadir algunas de ser necesario.

Filosofía y Metodología Educativa

Este curso está basado en la teoría educativa del Constructivismo.

Constructivismo es una filosofía de aprendizaje fundamentada en la premisa, de

que, reflexionando a través de nuestras experiencias, podemos construir nuestro

propio conocimiento sobre el mundo en el que vivimos.

Cada uno de nosotros genera nuestras propias “reglas “y “métodos

mentales” que utilizamos para darle sentido a nuestras experiencias. Aprender, por

lo tanto, es simplemente el proceso de ajustar nuestros modelos mentales para

poder acomodar nuevas experiencias. Como facilitadores, nuestro enfoque es el

mantener una conexión entre los hechos y fomentar un nuevo entendimiento en los

estudiantes. También, intentamos adaptar nuestras estrategias de enseñanza a las

respuestas de nuestros estudiantes y motivar a los mismos a analizar, interpretar y

predecir información.

Existen varios principios para el constructivismo, entre los cuales están:

1. El aprendizaje es una búsqueda de significados. Por lo tanto, el

aprendizaje debe comenzar con situaciones en las cuales los estudiantes

estén buscando activamente construir un significado.

2. Significado requiere comprender todas las partes. Y, las partes deben

entenderse en el contexto del todo. Por lo tanto, el proceso de

aprendizaje se enfoca en los conceptos primarios, no en hechos aislados.

3. Para enseñar bien, debemos entender los modelos mentales que los

estudiantes utilizan para percibir el mundo y las presunciones que ellos

hacen para apoyar dichos modelos.

4. El propósito del aprendizaje, es para un individuo, el construir su propio

significado, no sólo memorizar las contestaciones “correctas” y repetir el

significado de otra persona. Como la educación es intrínsecamente

http://flelibrary.org/



interdisciplinaria, la única forma válida para asegurar el aprendizaje es

hacer del avalúo parte esencial de dicho proceso, asegurando que el

mismo provea a los estudiantes con la información sobre la calidad de su

aprendizaje.

5. La evaluación debe servir como una herramienta de auto-análisis.

6. Proveer herramientas y ambientes que ayuden a los estudiantes a

interpretar las múltiples perspectivas que existen en el mundo.

7. El aprendizaje debe ser controlado internamente y analizado por el

estudiante.



Study Guide

Course Title Evidence

Code CRIM 370

Time Length Five Weeks

Prerequisite None

Description

In this course we will study the law of evidence and the trial process. We will begin

with an overview of the basic elements of civil and criminal litigation. This will be

followed with a cursory review of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Florida

Evidence Code. We will approach this study by using the case method in order to

gain an understanding of how the rules of evidence are applied in actual civil and

criminal practice. It is intended that the Criminal Justice student should acquire a

basic understanding of the rules of evidence and how they are applied in the trial

process.

General Objectives

Upon completion of this course the student will:

1. Recognize the rules of evidence, their purpose and how they govern the trial

process.

2. Identify the essential elements of civil and criminal litigation.

3. Understand the objections and how they are applied in court.

4. Explain the different roles that the participants play in the trial process.

5. Understand the concepts of “burden of proof” and “presumptions”.

6. Differentiate between relevant evidence and irrelevant evidence.

7. Recognize the difference between authentication and identification

8. Differentiate between lay witness and expert witness.

9. Comprehend the privileges under the rules and how they limit admissibility.

10. Know the hearsay rule and its exceptions.



Texts and Resources

Park, R.C., Leonard, D.P., & Goldberg, S.H. (2004). Evidence Law: A Students

Guide to the Law of Evidence as Applied in American Trials (2nd ed.). West

Publishing.

Stopp, Margaret T. (1998). Evidence Law in the Trial Process.

Kentucky:Thomson Delmar

References and Supplementary Materials

Best, A. (2001). Evidence Examples and Explanations. (5ta ed.) New York: Aspen

Fisher, G. (2004). Federal Rules of Evidence. Minnesota: West Law

Goode, S. & Wellborn, O. et al. (2002). Courtroom Evidence Handbook. (5ta. ed.)

Minnesota: Thomson-West

Gram, M. (2003). Federal Rules of Evidence, in a Nutshell. (6ta ed.) Minnesota:

Thomson-West

Mueller, C. & Kirkpatrick, L. (2000). Evidence Under the Rules. (4ta ed.) New York:

Aspen

Nemeth, C. (2001). Law and Evidence: A Primer for Criminal Justice, Criminology,

Law, and Legal Studies. New Jersey: Prentice Hall

Park, L. & Goldberg, S. (1998). Evidence Law. Minnesota: Thomson-West

Shapiro, B. (1991). Beyond Reasonable Doubt and Probable Cause-Historical

Perspectives on the Anglo-American Law of Evidence. California: University

of California

Evaluation

The student performance evaluation consists of various quantitative and

qualitative measures designed to determine the extent of learning demonstrated by

the student during the course. Such evaluation will be based on the number of

points earned by the student in the several activities assigned for each workshop.

Points will be assigned for written work submitted, oral presentations in class,

group work, class participation, and final exam. The final grade will be a

combination of all the points earned by the student during the course. The

breakdown for the calculation of the final grade is as follows:



1. Written assignments 20%

2. Oral presentations in class 20%

3. Group work and participation in class 20%

4. Final examination 20%

5. Portfolio 20%

Dual Language Component:

The performance evaluation will take into consideration the professional

competence of the student to develop ideas to address problems effectively in both

English and Spanish. A 70% content and 30% language scheme will be used to

measure the student’s competence as a dual language professional.

Description of Course Policies

1. This course follows the Sistema Universitario Ana G. Méndez Discipline-Based

Dual-Language Immersion Model® designed to promote each student’s

development as a Dual Language Professional. Workshops will be facilitated in

English and Spanish, strictly using the 50/50 model. This means that each

workshop will be conducted entirely in the language specified. The language

used in the workshops will alternate to insure that 50% of the course will be

conducted in English and 50% in Spanish. To maintain this balance, the

course module may specify that both languages will be used during the fifth

workshop, dividing that workshop’s time and activities between the two

languages. If students have difficulty with asking a question in the target

language in which the activity is being conducted, students may choose to use

their preferred language for that particular question. However, the facilitator

must answer in the language assigned for that particular day. This should only

be an exception as it is important for students to use the assigned language.

The 50/50 model does not apply to language courses where the delivery of

instruction must be conducted in the language taught (Spanish or English only).

2. The course is conducted in an accelerated format and requires that students

prepare in advance for each workshop according to the course module. Each

workshop requires an average ten hours of preparation but could require more.



3. Attendance at all class sessions is mandatory. A student that is absent to a

workshop must present the facilitator a reasonable excuse. The facilitator will

evaluate if the absence is justified and decide how the student will make up the

missing work, if applicable. The facilitator will decide on the following: allow the

student to make up the work, or allow the student to make up the work and

assign extra work to compensate for the missing class time.

Assignments required prior to the workshop must be completed and turned in

on the assigned date. The facilitator may decide to adjust the grade given for

late assignments and make-up work.

4. If a student is absent to more than one workshop the facilitator will have the

following options:

a. If a student misses two workshops, the facilitator may lower one grade

based on the students existing grade.

b. If the student misses three workshops, the facilitator may lower two

grades based on the students existing grade.

5. Student attendance and participation in oral presentations and special class

activities are extremely important as it is not possible to assure that they can be

made up. If the student provides a valid and verifiable excuse, the facilitator

may determine a substitute evaluation activity if he/she understands that an

equivalent activity is possible. This activity must include the same content and

language components as the oral presentation or special activity that was

missed.

6. In cooperative activities the group will be assessed for their final work.

However, each member will have to collaborate to assure the success of the

group and the assessment will be done collectively as well as individually.

7. It is expected that all written work will be solely that of the student and should

not be plagiarized. That is, the student must be the author of all work

submitted. All quoted or paraphrased material must be properly cited, with

credit given to its author or publisher. It should be noted that plagiarized



writings are easily detectable and students should not risk losing credit for

material that is clearly not their own (see Academic Honesty Policy).

8. If the Facilitator makes changes to the study guide, such changes should be

discussed with and given to students in writing at the beginning of the first

workshop.

9. The facilitator will establish a means of contacting students by providing an

email address, phone number, hours to be contacted and days.

10. The use of cellular phones is prohibited during sessions; if there is a need to

have one, it must be on vibrate or silent mode during class session.

11. Children or family members that are not registered in the course are not

allowed to the classrooms.

12. All students are subject to the policies regarding behavior in the university

community established by the institution and in this course.

Note: If for any reason you cannot access the URL’s presented in the

module, do not stop your investigation. There are many search engines and

other links you can use to search for information. These are some

examples:

www.google.com

www.altavista.com

www.ask.com

www.excite.com

www.pregunta.com

www.findarticles.com

www.telemundo.yahoo.com

www.bibliotecavirtualut.suagm.edu

www.eric.ed.gov/

www.flelibrary.org/

The facilitator may make changes or add additional web resources if deemed

necessary.

http://www.findarticles.com/

http://bibliotecavirtualut.suagm.edu/

http://www.eric.ed.gov/

http://flelibrary.org/



Teaching Philosophy and Methodology

This course is grounded in the learning theory of Constructivism. Constructivism

is a philosophy of learning founded on the premise that, by reflecting on our

experiences, we construct our own understanding of the world in which we live.

Each of us generates our own “rules” and “mental models,” which we use to

make sense of our experiences. Learning, therefore, is simply the process of

adjusting our mental models to accommodate new experiences. As teachers, our

focus is on making connections between facts and fostering new understanding in

students. We will also attempt to tailor our teaching strategies to student responses

and encourage students to analyze, interpret and predict information.

There are several guiding principles of constructivism:

1. Learning is a search for meaning. Therefore, learning must start with the issues

around which students are actively trying to construct meaning.

2. Meaning requires understanding wholes as well as parts. And parts must be

understood in the context of wholes. Therefore, the learning process focuses on

primary concepts, not isolated facts.

3. In order to teach well, we must understand the mental models that students use

to perceive the world and the assumptions they make to support those models.

4. The purpose of learning is for an individual to construct his or her own meaning,

not just memorize the "right" answers and regurgitate someone else's meaning.

Since education is inherently interdisciplinary, the only valuable way to measure

learning is to make the assessment part of the learning process, ensuring it

provides students with information on the quality of their learning.

5. Evaluation should serve as a self-analysis tool.

6. Provide tools and environments that help learners interpret the multiple

perspectives of the world.

7. Learning should be internally controlled and mediated by the learner.



Workshop One

Specific Objectives

At the end of Workshop One the student will:

1. Understand the judicial process by means of a review of its general elements.

2. Describe the procedural and evidentiary rules, their purpose and function in

litigation.

3. Define the essential elements of civil and criminal litigation.

4. Understand the roles played by lawyers and other participants in the judicial

process.

Language Objectives

1. After reading a case or other subject of research, the student will

summarize the main ideas using correct grammar and spelling.

2. Given a real-life case study, the student will explain in his/her own words

the problem that is presented.

3. Given short dialogues, the student will adequately paraphrase the content

of what each party state.

Electronic Links (URLs)

Evidence: Definition

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/evidence

http://aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/evidence

www.dictionary.law.com

The Federal Rules of Evidence

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/

Judicial process in Florida

http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/fl/law/processcon.html

Role players in the judicial process

http://www.andersonkill.com/titanic/process.htm

The trial

http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/fl/law/processbus.html

Discovery

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/evidence

http://aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/evidence

http://www.dictionary.law.com/


http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/fl/law/processcon.html

http://www.andersonkill.com/titanic/process.htm

http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/fl/law/processbus.html



http://www.llrx.com/columns/precisionaccuracyrelevance.htm

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/formal-discovery-gathering-evidence-

lawsuit-29764.html

http://ediscovery.quarles.com/2011/09/articles/rules/florida-moving-to-adopt-

federallyinspired-ediscovery-rules/

Tasks to be completed before Workshop One

1. Research and study the differences between the civil and criminal processes.

What is evidence? What are the rules of evidence? What are the rules of

procedure?

2. Write an analytical essay on the importance of the rules of evidence in the judicial

process. Why are these rules necessary? This essay is to be handed in to the

Facilitator (see Appendix B).

3. Prepare for an open discussion about the role of the participants in the judicial

process and their responsibilities (see Appendix D).

4. Research and read on the various discovery methods employed in litigation.

Make a list and bring it to class.

5. Prepare for a class debate on discovery procedures. The Facilitator will ask

questions on this subject to students chosen at random.

Activities

1. Introduction of the course by the Facilitator.

2. Introduction of the students by the students.

3. Introduction of the Facilitator by the Facilitator.

4. Selection of the student representative.

5. The Facilitator reviews the module and the evaluation process.

6. Overview of the judicial process by the Facilitator.

7. Students are called at random to present their findings on the application of the

rules of evidence in the judicial process.

8. Open class discussion on the function of the role players in the judicial process.

Students debate the application of the rules of ethics in this context.

http://www.llrx.com/columns/precisionaccuracyrelevance.htm

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/formal-discovery-gathering-evidence-lawsuit-29764.html

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/formal-discovery-gathering-evidence-lawsuit-29764.html

http://ediscovery.quarles.com/2011/09/articles/rules/florida-moving-to-adopt-federallyinspired-ediscovery-rules/

http://ediscovery.quarles.com/2011/09/articles/rules/florida-moving-to-adopt-federallyinspired-ediscovery-rules/



9. Students present their findings on the various discovery methods employed in

litigation.

10. The Facilitator reviews the homework for Workshop Two.

Assessment

1. Students will be assessed on their punctual arrival in class and the

effectiveness of their participation in the activities for this workshop.

2. The Facilitator will review written assignments submitted by the students for

this workshop and grade them according to the rubrics found in the

Appendix.

3. Written report rubric.

4. Class participation rubric.



Taller Dos

Objetivos Específicos

Al finalizar este taller el/la estudiante:

1. Reconocerá las etapas de un juicio.

2. Identificará las varias clases de evidencia.

3. Comprenderá como se aplican las reglas de evidencia en litigio.

4. Distinguirá la diferencia entre un juicio y apelación.

5. Comprenderá la labor del juez y del jurado en un juicio.

6. Comprenderá qué es “el peso de prueba” y presunciones, y como estos

conceptos se aplican en litigio.

Objetivos de Lenguaje:

1. El/la estudiante resumirá por escrito el producto de su lectura usando

apropiada ortografía y gramática.

2. El/la estudiante explicará en sus propias palabras y en forma coherente el

resultado de su investigación.

Direcciones Electrónicas

Resumen de las reglas de evidencia (“Summary of the Rules of Evidence”)

http://library.findlaw.com/2001/Jan/1/241488.html

“Peso de prueba”

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Burden+of+Proof

Presunciones

Federal Rules of Evidence (Rule 301): Presunciones


Florida Statutes: Peso de Prueba (§§90.303 – 90.304)

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index

Florida Statutes: Presunciones (§§90.301 – 90.304)


http://library.findlaw.com/2001/Jan/1/241488.html

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Burden+of+Proof






County of Ulster v. Allen

http://supreme.justia.com/us/442/140/case.html

Tareas a realizar antes del Taller Dos:

1. Buscar información y escribir un ensayo sobre el significado y aplicación en

litigio de los conceptos de “peso de prueba” (burden of proof) y presunciones.

Este ensayo es para entregar al Facilitador.

2. Buscar información y escribir un ensayo sobre los estándares de prueba,

contestando las siguientes preguntas (Este ensayo es para entregar al

Facilitador.):

(a) Cuál es el estándar de prueba en litigio criminal?

(b) Cuál es el estándar de prueba en litigio civil?

(c) Cuál es la diferencia entre el estándar de prueba en litigio criminal

y litigio civil? Cuál es la razón fundamental para esta diferencia?

3. Leer el principio (hasta dónde dice “Reversed”) del caso de County Court of

Ulster v. Allen (442 U.S. 140 - http://supreme.justia.com/us/442/140/) y

prepararse para discutir en clase como el Tribunal Supremo de los Estados

Unidos dispuso del concepto de presunciones.

4. Prepararse para hacer una presentación oral sobre este tema.

5. Leer el artículo titulado “Summary of the Rules of Evidence” para discutir en

clase. http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/evid/

6. Recuerde trabajar con su portafolio (ver Anejos E1 al E7).

Actividades

1. El facilitador comenzará la clase con un breve repaso.

2. El Facilitador presenta los varios temas para este taller.

3. Discusión abierta sobre el concepto de estándar de prueba.

4. La clase se divide en dos grupos: El primero se reúne y discuten entre si el

estándar de prueba en litigio criminal. El otro se reúne y discuten entre si el

estándar de prueba en litigio civil. Cada grupo escoge un portavoz para

explicar su estándar y presentar su opinión sobre por qué la diferencia entre

los estándares (ver Anejo C).


http://supreme.justia.com/us/442/140/

http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/evid/



5. Estudiantes presentan sus análisis del caso de County Court of Ulster v.Allen.

6. Discusión abierta sobre el caso de County Court of Ulster v. Allen.

7. El Facilitador explica el proceso de apelación en el caso de County Court of

Ulster.

8. El Facilitador explica la asignación para el Taller Cuatro.

Avalúo

1. Los estudiantes son evaluados por su puntualidad en cuanto a su presencia en

clase y por la eficiencia de su participación en las actividades de este taller.

2. El Facilitador evalúa los informes escritos por los estudiantes para este taller

siguiendo la rúbrica que se encuentra en el apéndice de este módulo.

3. Matriz valorativa de trabajos escritos.

4. Matriz valorativa de participación en clase.

5. Matriz valorativa de presentaciones orales.



Workshop Three

Specific Objectives

Upon completion of this workshop, the student will:

1. Define the concept of relevance.

2. Understand the concept of “laying the foundation” and how it is applied at trial.

3. Distinguish between relevant and irrelevant evidence.

4. Know what admissible evidence is and what is not admissible under the rules

of evidence.

5. Understand the concepts of authentication and identification and how they are

applied at trial.

Language Objectives

1. After reading a case or other subject of research, the student will summarize

the main ideas using correct grammar and spelling.

2. Given a real-life case study, the student will explain in his/her own words the

problem that is presented.

3. Given short dialogues, the student will adequately paraphrase the content of

what each party state.


United States of America v. James Charles Abbott

http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/1998/07/97-6199.htm

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/153/728/619741/

Relevance

“What is relevant evidence?”

http://voices.yahoo.com/what-relevant-evidence-335533.html

Admissible evidence

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=960110

“Laying the Foundation” defined

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/lay+a+foundation

http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/1998/07/97-6199.htm

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/153/728/619741/

http://voices.yahoo.com/what-relevant-evidence-335533.html

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=960110

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/lay+a+foundation



“Demonstrative Evidence, Evidentiary Issues & Laying a Proper Foundation”

http://www.greyhawk.com/news/technical/Demonstrative_Evidence_Evidentiary_Is

sues_&_Laying_a_Proper_Foundation.pdf

Tasks to be completed before Workshop Three

1. Read the case of United States of America v. James Charles Abbott, 10th

Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 97-6199, 97-6206.

2. Write an essay (Appendix B), to be handed in, answering the following

questions:

a. How does the court explain the relationship between “order of proof”

and relevance?

b. How important is the order of proof at trial?

c. Who controls the order of proof at trial?

d. How does the court define the concept of relevance?

3. Research and study the following rules in The Federal Rules of Evidence:

a. Rule 401: “Relevancy”

b. Rule 402: “Relevancy/Irrelevancy”

4. Prepare a question that in the context of the question is relevant and a question

that in the context of the question is irrelevant. The student should propose a

hypothetical situation on which to base each question.

5. Must read the article entitled “Demonstrative Evidence, Evidentiary Issues &

Laying a Proper Foundation,” and prepare to discuss its contents in class.

6. Continue working with your portfolio (Appendixes E1 to E7).

Activities

1. The Facilitator starts the class with a short review and introduces the themes

for this workshop.

2. Following the instructions for assignment number four above, students in

groups of two present their respective hypothetical situations. One student asks

one of his questions and the other explains whether the question is relevant or

not. The order of asking and responding to questions is reversed so that each

http://www.greyhawk.com/news/technical/Demonstrative_Evidence_Evidentiary_Issues_&_Laying_a_Proper_Foundation.pdf

http://www.greyhawk.com/news/technical/Demonstrative_Evidence_Evidentiary_Issues_&_Laying_a_Proper_Foundation.pdf



student has the opportunity to ask one relevant and one irrelevant question and

to explain the relevancy or irrelevancy of his/her partner’s questions.

3. Open discussion on the subject of relevance and the applicable federal and

state rules of evidence.

4. The Facilitator explains the concept of “laying the foundation” before submitting

evidence at trial.

5. Students are called at random to explain the issues presented to the court in

the case of United States of America v. James Charles Abbott.

6. Open discussion of the court’s decision in Abbott and how the court applies the

concepts of order of proof and relevance in this case.

7. The Facilitator explains the assignments for Workshop Four.

Assessment




this workshop and grade them according to the rubrics found in the Appendix.


4. Class participation rubric



Taller Cuatro

Objetivos Específicos

Al finalizar este taller, el/la estudiante:

1. Definirá el papel del testigo y los siguientes conceptos: competencia para

testificar, impugnación del testigo (“impeachment”).

2. Comprenderá la diferencia entre un testigo laico y un perito.

3. Reconocerá la diferencia entre opinión admisible y opinión no admisible.

4. Reconocerá el concepto de privilegios bajo las reglas de evidencia y como

estos limitan la admisibilidad de evidencia.

5. Comprenderá el concepto de evidencia circunstancial.

Objetivos de Lenguaje:

1. El/la estudiante resumirá por escrito el producto de su lectura usando

apropiada ortografía y gramática.

2. El/la estudiante explicará en sus propias palabras y en forma coherente el

resultado de su investigación.

Direcciones Electrónicas

Reglas Federal de Evidencia 601 – 615: Testigos

http://expertpages.com/federal/federal.htm

Reglas Federal de Evidencia 701 – 706: Opinión y Testimonio de Perito


Evidencia circunstancial

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c342.htm Evidencia circunstancial: El caso de Scott Peterson l

http://crime.about.com/od/current/a/scott040718.htm

Evidencia Directa/Evidencia Circunstancial

http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/direct-evidence.html

Evidencia Directa

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d050.htm

Reglas Federal de Evidencia, Regla 501: Privilegios

http://expertpages.com/federal/a5.htm



http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c342.htm

http://crime.about.com/od/current/a/scott040718.htm

http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/direct-evidence.html

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d050.htm

http://expertpages.com/federal/a5.htm



Tareas a realizar antes del Taller Cuatro

1. Leer y aprender la Regla 702 de “Federal Rules of Evidence” y la Regla

90.702 de “Florida Rules of Evidence” (Testimonio de peritos).

2. Prepararse para hacer el papel de un testigo. Crear una situación hipotética

de la cual va a testificar, indicando el tipo de testigo que va a personificar: un

experto, un testigo laico ofreciendo evidencia directa, o un testigo laico

ofreciendo evidencia circunstancial. El Facilitador interrogará los testigos. La

clase de testigo será asignada al final del Taller Tres.

3. Leer la narrativa del caso de Scott Peterson que aparece en las direcciones

electrónicas y en el siguiente video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkUoJ-

zTkzc y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZYw6nSCUvM y preparar un

análisis de la clase de evidencia utilizada por el fiscal para probar la

culpabilidad de Scott Peterson. El escrito debe identificar la evidencia como

directa o circunstancial. El escrito es para entregar al Facilitador.

4. Buscar información sobre contra-interrogación e impugnación de testigos y

prepararse para dramatizar la impugnación de un compañero de clase que va

a hacer el papel de un testigo. Los dos compañeros invertirán papeles de

manera que los dos tendrán la oportunidad de hacer el papel de testigo y de

abogado interrogador. Los dos estudiantes crearán la situación hipotética

necesaria para la dramatización.

5. Leer la Regla 501 de las “Federal Rules of Evidence” (Privilegios) y prepararse

para discutir este tema en la clase.

6. Continuar trabajando con el portafolio.

Actividades

1. El Facilitador presenta los temas para este taller.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkUoJ-zTkzc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkUoJ-zTkzc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZYw6nSCUvM



2. Siguiendo las instrucciones de la asignación número 2, estudiantes son

interrogados por el Facilitador.

3. Discusión abierta sobre el caso de Scott Peterson y el uso de evidencia

circunstancial en un juicio criminal.

4. El Facilitador explica el concepto de contra-interrogación.

5. Estudiantes dramatizan la impugnación de testigos siguiendo las instrucciones

en la asignación número 4.

6. Discusión plenaria sobre contra-interrogación y la impugnación de testigos.

7. Estudiantes presentan sus hallazgos sobre la ley de privilegios

8. El Facilitador explica la asignación para el Taller Cinco.

Avalúo

1. Los estudiantes son evaluados por su puntualidad en cuanto a su presencia en

clase y por la eficiencia de su participación en las actividades de este taller.

2. El Facilitador evalúa los informes escritos por los estudiantes para este taller

siguiendo la matriz que se encuentra en el apéndice de este módulo.

3. Matriz valorativa de trabajos escritos.

4. Matriz valorativa de participación en clase.



Workshop Five/Taller Cinco

NOTA: Este taller es bilingüe.

Tanto, el Facilitador como los

estudiantes, deberán utilizar el

idioma asignado para cada tarea y

actividad.

NOTE: This is a bilingual workshop.

Both the facilitator and student

should use the language assigned

for each homework and activity.

Specific Objectives

Upon completion of this workshop, the student will:

1. Define the hearsay rule.

2. Understand the exceptions to the hearsay rule.

3. Understand the relationship between the hearsay rule and the confrontation

clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

4. Recognize the application of the hearsay rule in trial practice.

Language objectives

1. After reading a case or other subject of research, the student will summarize

the main ideas using correct grammar and spelling.

2. Given a real-life case study, the student will explain in his/her own words the

problem that is presented.

3. Given short dialogues, the student will adequately paraphrase the content

of what each party state.


Hearsay evidence: Defined

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hearsay+evidence

Hearsay in the Federal Rules of Evidence

http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/hearsay-rule.html

http://www.legalzoom.com/lawsuits-settlements/more-litigation/objection-hearsay-

what-is

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hearsay+evidence

http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/hearsay-rule.html

http://www.legalzoom.com/lawsuits-settlements/more-litigation/objection-hearsay-what-is

http://www.legalzoom.com/lawsuits-settlements/more-litigation/objection-hearsay-what-is



Hearsay in the criminal trial

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/more-criminal-topics/evidence-

witnesses/hearsay-evidence.html

Confrontation clause: Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt6frag6_user.html

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-9410.ZO.html


Tasks to be completed before Workshop Five

1. Research and read the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Crawford

v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36. Prepare to make an oral presentation in Spanish

of the facts, issues, and conclusion of the court. Special attention should be

given to the Court’s discussion regarding the relationship between the sixth

amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the hearsay rule. What is the Court’s

conclusion in this respect? This question is to be answered in writing

and is to be handed in to the Facilitator.

2. Read materials on the hearsay rule contained in the URLs listed above.

3. Prepare to discuss in class your understanding of the hearsay rule and its

exceptions.

4. Prepare to take a written exam in English.

Activities

1. The Facilitator introduces the themes for this workshop (in English).

2. Open discussion of the hearsay rule and its exceptions (in English).

3. Students present their case analysis of: Crawford v. Washington (in Spanish).

4. Class discussion about the court’s decision in the case of Crawford v.

Washington (in Spanish).

5. Class discussion of the relationship between the confrontation clause found in

the sixth amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the hearsay rule (in

Spanish).

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/more-criminal-topics/evidence-witnesses/hearsay-evidence.html

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/more-criminal-topics/evidence-witnesses/hearsay-evidence.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt6frag6_user.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-9410.ZO.html




6. Final exam in English.

7. Students complete reflective journal: (see Appendix A - in English)

8. Students will hand in their portfolio (see Appendixes E1 to E7).

9. The student representative will start the class evaluation process.

Assessment




this workshop and grade them according to the rubrics found in the Appendix.

3. The Facilitator grants a final grade to the students following the assessment

scheme set forth in this module.

4. Class participation rubric.


6. Portfolio rubrics.



Anejos/Appendixes



Appendix A/Anejo A

DIARIO REFLEXIVO Nombre ____________________________

Fecha ____________________________

El propósito de este diario es el de reflexionar y escribir sobre los conceptos,

los sentimientos y las actitudes que se desatan a partir de la discusión y los

trabajos de cada taller. Este proceso le ayudará en su autoanálisis, así como

propiciará la auto evaluación.

Utilizando las siguientes preguntas guías, reflexione sobre lo presentado en el

taller y conteste las mismas en forma de ensayo con excelente gramática,

ortografía y puntuación:

1. Hoy aprendí….

2. Este tema presentado en clase me ayuda a……

3. Puedo aplicar lo discutido en la clase a mi vida y experiencias personales…



Reflexive Diary

Name ____________________________

Date ____________________________

The purpose of this diary is to reflect and write about the concepts, feelings,

and attitudes experienced after class discussion and assignments. This process

will help your self-assessment.

Using the following questions, reflect about what was presented in this workshop

and answer the questions following an essay style using excellent grammar,

syntax and punctuation:

1. Today I learned…

2. The topic presented today helps me…

3. I can apply today’s discussion to my life and personal experiences…



Appendix B/Anejo B

Rubric to Evaluate Written Work Name: ______________________________ Date: ________________ Subject Matter: _______________________

Criteria Value Points

Student Score

Content

1. Introductory statement is clear and well written. 10

2. Major and relevant details are properly expressed 10

3. Thesis is supported in a persuasive manner, providing precise and relevant examples.

10

4. Sentences are cohesive and ideas flow smoothly and easy to read.

10

5. The essay establishes the writer’s relationship with the subject, while engaging the reader’s attention.

10

6. The writing reaches conclusions that reflect the relationship and significant outcomes of the discussion.

10

7. Demonstrates a comprehensive grasp of significant ideas, using them appropriately in an organized manner.

10

Language

8. Writing demonstrates the author’s command of standard English, with proper vocabulary and flow of ideas.

10

9. Uses English grammar appropriately. 10

10. Verb usage and syntax are appropriate.

10

Total points (70% content, 30% language) 100



Matriz Valorativa Para Trabajos Escritos

Nombre del Estudiante: ____________________________ Fecha: __________ Título del proyecto: __________________________________

Criterios Valor Puntuación Otorgada

Contenido

1. La introducción es precisa y bien escrita. 10

2. El ensayo refleja los detalles principales y relevantes del tema.

10

3. La tesis es bien fundamentada, presentada en forma convincente, con ejemplos apropiados.

10

4. Las oraciones fluyen coherentemente y son fáciles de leer.

10

5. El ensayo destaca la relación entre el autor y el tema, resaltando la atención del lector.

10

6. El escrito desarrolla conclusiones que reflejan la relación y resultados significativos del tema.

10

7. Demuestra un alcance completo de ideas importantes, usándolas apropiadamente y bien organizadas.

10

Idioma

8. El escrito demuestra el dominio del español por el autor, usando el vocabulario y sintaxis apropiado.

10

9. El escrito demuestra el uso correcto de la gramática española.

10

10.El escrito demuestra el uso y conjugación de verbos en forma apropiada.

10

Puntuación total (70% contenido y 30% idioma)

100





Appendix C/Anejo C

Rubric to Evaluate Oral Presentations

Name: _____________________________________ Date: ________________

Subject of the presentation: _______________________________________________

Criteria Value Points

Student Score

Contents

1. Effective introduction of the subject matter. 10

2. The presentation is clear, focused and interesting. 10

3. Identifies the goals and objectives and main ideas to be included in the presentation.

10

4. The presentation of the main theme is well organized, is coherent and easy to follow.

10

5. Mastery of the subject matter is demonstrated by properly explaining its contents and concepts.

10

6. Presentation reflects creativity and appropriate use of visual aids.

10

7. Concluding remarks with summary of presentation. 10

Language

8. Presentation demonstrates the speaker’s command of the English language, with appropriate vocabulary and flow of ideas.

10

9. Appropriate use of English grammar. 10

10. Appropriate use of verbs and other parts of speech.

10

Total points (70% contents, 30% language) 100





Matriz Valorativa Para Presentaciones Orales

Nombre: _________________________________ Fecha: _______________ Tema de la presentación: _________________________________________________

Criterios Valor Puntuación Otorgada

Contenido

1. Apropiada introducción del tema. 10

2. La presentación es clara, bien enfocada e interesante. 10

3. Define los objetivos y principales ideas de la presentación.

10

4. La presentación de la tesis principal está bien organizada, es coherente y fácil de entender.

10

5. Demuestra dominio del material con explicaciones precisas del contenido y conceptos.

10

6. La presentación demuestra creatividad y buen uso de ayudas visuales.

10

7. Conclusión eficaz con resumen de la presentación. 10

Idioma

8. La presentación demuestra el dominio del idioma español por el/la presentador/a, con vocabulario adecuado y eficaz flujo de ideas.

10

9. Uso adecuado de la gramática española.

10

10. Uso adecuado de los verbos y otras partes de la oración.

10

Puntuación total (70% contenido, 30% idioma)

100



Appendix D/Anejo D

Rubric to Evaluate Class Participation

Name: _______________________________ Date_________________

Criteria

Value Points Earned

Contents

1. Makes frequent contributions to class discussions. 10

2. Demonstrates interest in the class discussions and presentations by classmates and by the facilitator.

10

3. Responds to questions posed by his classmates and by the facilitator.

10

4. Formulates questions and comments pertinent to the subject under discussion.

10

5. Has done the homework. 10

6. Contributes to the class with information and material above and beyond that included in the homework.

10

7. Presents arguments based on the readings and other sources relevant to the subject matter of the course.

10

Language

8. Participation demonstrates the student’s command of the English language, with proper vocabulary and flow of ideas.

10

9. Student demonstrates appropriate use of grammar. 10

10. Student demonstrates appropriate use of verbs and other parts of speech.

10



Matriz Para Evaluar la Participación en Clase Nombre: ___________________________ Fecha: _____________________

Criterios

Puntos Asignados

Puntos Otorgados

Contenido

1. Contribuye frecuentemente a las discusiones en clase. 10

2. Demuestra interés en las discusiones en clase y en las presentaciones de sus compañeros y el facilitador.

10

3. Contesta preguntas del facilitador y sus compañeros 10

4. Formula preguntas pertinentes al tema de la clase. 10

5. Viene preparado a clase. 10

6. Contribuye a la clase con material e información adicional.

10

7. Presenta argumentos fundamentados en las lecturas y trabajos de la clase.

10

Idioma

8. En las presentaciones, el/la estudiante demuestra dominio del idioma español, con vocabulario adecuado e ideas coherentes.

10

9. El/la estudiante demuestra adecuado uso de la gramática española.

10

10. El/la estudiante demuestra adecuado uso de los verbos y otras partes de la oración.

10

Puntuación total (70% contenido, 30% idioma)

100



Anejo E/Appendix E Guidelines to prepare the portfolio

1. Determination of sources of content

The following, but not limited to, documentation will be included:.

a. Projects, surveys, and reports.

b. Oral presentations

c. Essays: dated writing samples to show progress

d. Research papers: dated unedited and edited first drafts to show

progress

e. Written pieces that illustrate critical thinking about readings: response or

reaction papers.

f. Class notes, interesting thoughts to remember, etc.

g. Learning journals, reflective diaries.

h. Self assessments, peer assessments, facilitator assessments.

i. Notes from student-facilitator conferences.

2. Organization of documentation

Documentation will be organized by workshop, and by type of assignment

within workshops. Workshops will be separated from one another using

construction paper or paper of different colors, with tabs indicating the

workshop number.

3. Presentation of the portfolio

Documentation will be posted in a binder or in a digital version (e-

portfolio).

The Portfolio Informational Sheet will be placed in the transparent front

pocket of the binder for identification purposes (Appendix E1).

The cover page will follow exactly APA guidelines applied to a cover

page of research papers submitted at Metro Orlando Campus. This

cover page will be placed at the beginning of the portfolio.

A log of entries that can be expanded with each new entry properly

numbered. The table, which should be located at the beginning, should



include a brief description, date produced, date submitted, and date

evaluated (Appendix E2).

Introduction and conclusion of the income and outcome of the portfolio.

Documentation and reflection process (Appendix E3) required in each

workshop.

Overall portfolio self assessment (Appendix E4).

The Progression Follow-Up Template (Appendix E5).

A list of references and appendices of all assignments included will be

added to the end of the portfolio.

Letter of Use and Return or Use and Discard of Portfolio (Appendices

E6 & E7)

The entire portfolio will follow APA style: Courier or Times New Roman

font, size 12, double space, and 1-inch margins. See a “Publication

Manual of the APA, Fifth Edition.”

4. Portfolio Evaluation (Appendix E8)



Appendix E1/Anejo E1: PORTFOLIO INFORMATIONAL SHEET

Sistema Universitario Ana G. Méndez Metro Orlando Campus

Universidad del Este, Universidad Metropolitana, Universidad del Turabo

Check one:

Universidad del Este

Universidad Metropolitana

Universidad del Turabo

Check one:

Undergraduate Graduate

Concentration

Student’s Name

Facilitator’s Name

Portfolio rated as

Reason of this rate



Appendix E2/Anejo E2: Log of Entries or Table of Content

Entry Description

Date of Entry

Date

Submitted

Date

Evaluated

Page #

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Note: Students can elaborate a table of contents for their portfolios instead.



Appendix E3/Anejo E3: Reflection Process

Directions: Please complete the following blanks:

This entry is an example of my strengths:

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

This entry is an example of an area I really need to improve:

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

This entry is an example of an area I have improved:

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

I think this exercise has been very helpful for my learning because:

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________



Auto Reflexión

Instrucciones: Complete los siguientes espacios en blanco:

Este ingreso es un ejemplo de mis fortalezas:

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Este ingreso es un ejemplo de un área que realmente necesito mejorar:

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Este ingreso es un ejemplo de un área que he mejorado:

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Considero que este ejercicio ha sido muy útil para mi aprendizaje porque:

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________



Appendix E4/Anejo E4: Overall Portfolio Self-Assessment

Dear Student: This form will assist you in monitoring your portfolio and determining the strengths and weaknesses of your writing Part I: Read the statements below. Write the numbers that mostly honest reflects your self assessment (Scale 1-5: 5=strong, 4=moderately strong, 3=average, 2=moderately weak, 1=weak) _____ 1. My portfolio contains all of the items required by the facilitator. _____ 2. My portfolio provides strong evidence of my improvement over the course. _____ 3. My portfolio provides strong evidence of my ability to report factual

information. _____ 4. My portfolio provides strong evidence of my ability to write effectively. _____ 5. My portfolio provides strong evidence of my ability to think and write

creatively. Part II: On the lines below, write the topic of each assignment. Rate your effort for each piece (5=strong effort, 1=weak effort). In the space below write one suggestion for improving that piece. _____ 1. _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _____ 2. _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _____ 3. _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _____ 4. _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _____ 5. _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ Part III: In assessing my overall portfolio, I find it to be (check one) Very satisfactory __________ Satisfactory __________ Somewhat satisfactory __________ Unsatisfactory __________

Part IV: In the space below list your goal for the next PT and two strategies you plan to achieve. Goal: ___________________________________________________________ Strategies:

1. _________________________________________________________________

2. _________________________________________________________________



Appendix E5/Anejo E5: Progression Follow-Up Template

Strengths Weaknesses Improvement Ideas

Facilitator’s comments

Student’s response and comments



Appendix E6/Anejo E6: Use and Return of Portfolio

Sistema Universitario Ana G. Méndez Universidad del Este, Universidad Metropolitana, Universidad del Turabo

I, ____________________________________, grant permission to the office of

Assessment and Placement of the Ana G. Méndez University System, to keep in their

records a copy of my portfolio. I understand that the portfolio is going to be used for

accreditation or educational purposes only, and that is not going to be disclosed without

my consent.

By signing this document I authorize the office of Assessment and Placement to keep a

copy of my portfolio for six months and return it to me at the end of this period of time.

_______________________________ ___________

Student’s Name (print) Date

_______________________________ ___________

Student’s Signature Date



Appendix E7/Anejo E7: Use and Discard of Portfolio

Sistema Universitario Ana G. Méndez Universidad del Este, Universidad Metropolitana, Universidad del Turabo

I, ____________________________________, grant permission to the office of

Assessment and Placement of the Ana G. Méndez University System to keep in their

records a copy of my portfolio. I understand that the portfolio is going to be used for

accreditation or educational purposes only, and that is not going to be disclosed without

my consent.

By signing this document I authorize the Office of Placement and Assessment to keep a

copy of my portfolio for six months and discard it at the end of this period of time.

.

_______________________________ ___________

Student’s Name (print) Date

_______________________________ ___________

Student’s Signature Date



Appendix F/Anejo F

Matriz de Valoración de la Mesa Redonda

Nombre/Grupo ________________________________________________

Curso: ______________________ Fecha: ________________________

Criterios Valor Puntaje del Estudiante

Contenido

El participante ofrece un análisis suficientemente sólido y sin dudar avanza en la conversación.

1 punto

El participante, a través de sus comentarios, demuestra un conocimiento profundo del tema y un alto entendimiento de las preguntas elaboradas por la audiencia.

1 punto

El participante ha venido preparado para la discusión – con notas y pasajes o textos marcados o anotados.

1 punto

El participante, a través de sus comentarios, demuestra que esta escuchando activamente a los otros participantes.

1 punto

El participante ofrece explicaciones aclaratorias y/o seguimiento que extiende la conversación.

1 punto

Las observaciones del participante frecuentemente se refieren a ideas o argumentos expuestos en la discusión.

1 punto

El participante demuestra una actitud y postura profesional durante la conversación.

1 punto

Lenguaje

Demuestra habilidad en el manejo del idioma español estándar (vocabulario, sintaxis y flujo de ideas).

1 punto

Usa la gramática de una manera adecuada y correcta.

1 punto



Ante una idea controversial, presenta un argumento persuasivo para defender su punto de vista personal.

1 punto

Total 10 puntos ( 70% contenido y 30% lenguaje)

Puntaje Total:

Nombre del estudiante: ______________________________ Firma del facilitador: _________________________

Nota: El puntaje adquirido por el estudiante podrá anotarse según la siguiente escala:

Excelente: 1.00 punto Bueno: 0.75 punto Regular: 0.50 punto Necesita mejorar: 0.25 punto



Round Table Rubric

Student name/Group: _______________________________________________

Course: __________________________ Date: ________________________

Criteria Value Points Student Score

Content

Participants offer an in-depth and solid analysis of the discussed content and the dialogue flows smoothly during the discussion.

1 point

Participants –through their comments– show deep knowledge of the discussed topic and a high level of understanding of questions asked by the audience.

1 point

Participants are appropriately prepared for discussion – with notes taken from their reading and passages or textbooks properly highlighted about the topic in discussion.

1 point

Participants, through their comments, show that they are paying close attention to what other participants say about the topic.

1 point

Participants provide explanations and follow up to enrich discussion.

1 point

Participants’ observations are usually related to ideas or arguments presented in this discussion.

1 point

Participants show a professional attitude and posture during the discussion.

1 point

Language

Participants show good use of the standard English

1 point



language (vocabulary, syntax and flow of ideas).

Participants use appropriate intonation in making remarks and good projection of the voice toward the audience.

1 point

Given a controversial topic during discussion, participants show a persuasive argument to support their points of view about it.

1 point

Total 10 points ( 70% content y 30% language)

Total Score:

Student name: ______________________________ Facilitator’s signature: _________________________

Note: The score obtained by the student should be recorded as follows:

Excellent: 1.00 point Good: 0.75 point Fair: 0.50 point Needs improvement: 0.25 point

Sistema Universitario Ana G. Méndez Florida Campuses ... · CRIM 370 Law of Evidence 3 Prep. 2005. Marga I. González-Montes, J.D. Rev. 2008. Iván Rivera, M.A., J.D. Prontuario

Documents