{"id":3442,"date":"2018-06-15T00:36:31","date_gmt":"2018-06-15T04:36:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/revistajuridica.uprrp.edu\/?p=3442"},"modified":"2018-06-15T00:36:31","modified_gmt":"2018-06-15T04:36:31","slug":"derecho-probatorio-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/revistajuridica\/2018\/06\/15\/derecho-probatorio-3\/","title":{"rendered":"Derecho Probatorio"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Cita:\u00a0<\/strong>Vivian I. Neptune Rivera &amp; Kariline D\u00edaz Negr\u00f3n,\u00a0<em>Derecho Probatorio<\/em>, 87 Rev. Jur. UPR 418 (2018).<\/p>\n<p>En este art\u00edculo, Vivian I. Neptune Rivera, la decana de la Escuela de Derecho de la Universidad de Puerto Rico, y su asistente de c\u00e1tedra, la estudiante de tercer a\u00f1o Kariline D\u00edaz Negr\u00f3n, analizan las decisiones emitidas por el Tribunal Supremo de Puerto Rico sobre Derecho Probatorio entre el julio de 2016 y el 30 de junio de 2017, en particular: (1) <em>Ponce Advance Med. Grp. Network, Inc. v. Santiago Gonz\u00e1lez<\/em> (sobre el privilegio de secretos de negocio); (2) <em>Pueblo v. Santiago Irizarry<\/em> (sobre la pertinencia de la prueba), y <em>Pueblo v. Vega Mart\u00ednez<\/em> (sobre la regla que proh\u00edbe preguntas sugestivas en el interrogatorio directo). Para analizar el primer caso, las autoras proveen un trasfondo general del desarrollo de normas en torno a los privilegios y los valores sociales que buscan proteger. Luego, analiza los requisitos recogidos en la <em>Ley para la protecci\u00f3n de secretos comerciales e industriales de Puerto Rico<\/em> para invocar el privilegio de secretos de negocio y cuestiona la necesidad de que el Tribunal Supremo intervenga para resolver este tipo de controversia en esta etapa procesal. En torno al segundo caso discutido, las autoras sostienen que \u2014contrario a lo resuelto por el Tribunal Supremo\u2014 tanto la prueba presentada como una fotograf\u00eda del recurrido esposado al lado del veh\u00edculo eran impertinentes y fueron presentadas al jurado precisamente para inflamar su \u00e1nimo. Finalmente, en su an\u00e1lisis de <em>Pueblo v. Vega Mart\u00ednez<\/em>, las autoras enfatizan el resumen que proveen las expresiones emitidas por el juez asociado Kolthoff Caraballo de los par\u00e1metros que se deben seguir en el interrogatorio directo ante testigos identificados con la parte adversa. Concluyen las autoras que, en el caso de una acci\u00f3n incoada por el Estado contra un ciudadano, es el Estado el que debe demostrar que el testigo no est\u00e1 parcializado o identificado con la parte adversa, de modo tal que la presunci\u00f3n de hostilidad y de identificaci\u00f3n con la parte adversa no aplique autom\u00e1ticamente.<\/p>\n<p>In this article, Vivian I. Neptune Rivera, the UPR Law School Dean, and Kariline D\u00edaz Negr\u00f3n, a third-year law student at the School and the Dean\u2019s research assistant, analyze decisions issued by the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico regarding local Rules of Evidence between July 1, 2016 and June 30, 2017. In particular, the article discusses: (1) <em>Ponce Advance Med. Grp. Network, Inc. v. Santiago Gonz\u00e1lez<\/em> (on trade secrets); (2) <em>People v. Santiago Irizarry <\/em>(on the pertinence test), and <em>Pueblo v. Vega Mart\u00ednez <\/em>(on the rule that prohibiting leading questions during a direct examinarion). To analyze the first case, the authors provide a general background of the development of norms surrounding privileges and the social values \u200b\u200bthey seek to protect. Then, they analyze the requirements included in the <em>Law for the protection of commercial and industrial secrets of Puerto Rico<\/em> to invoke the privilege of trade secrets and also question the correctness of Supreme Court intervention in this type of controversy at this procedural stage. Regarding the second case discussed, the authors argue that\u2014contrary to what the Supreme Court held in this case\u2014both the evidence presented and a photograph of the alleged handcuffed next to the vehicle were impertinent and were presented to the jury precisely to inflame their spirits. Finally, in their analysis of <em>Pueblo v. Vega Mart\u00ednez<\/em>, the authors emphasize the summary provided by Associate Judge Kolthoff Caraballo regarding the parameters that must be followed while interrogating witnesses identified with the adverse party. The authors conclude that, in the case of an action brought by the State against a citizen, it is the State that must demonstrate that the defendant&#8217;s witness is not biased or identified with the adverse party, so that the presumption of hostility and identification with the adverse part does not apply automatically.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/revistajuridica.uprrp.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/06\/05-Evidencia-1.pdf\">Enlace PDF (+)<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Vivian I. Neptune Rivera &amp; Kariline D\u00edaz Negr\u00f3n, 87 Rev. Jur. UPR 418 (2018).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[83],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-3442","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-revista87-num2"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/revistajuridica\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3442","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/revistajuridica\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/revistajuridica\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/revistajuridica\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/revistajuridica\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3442"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/revistajuridica\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3442\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/revistajuridica\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3442"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/revistajuridica\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3442"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/revistajuridica\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3442"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}