Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285 (1892), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that created one of the most important rules of evidence in American and British courtrooms: an exception to the hearsay rule for statements regarding the intentions of the declarant. [1]
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997), discussed the limitation on admitting relevant evidence set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Under this rule, otherwise relevant evidence may be excluded if the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or considerations of undue delay ...
On December 1, 2011, the restyled Federal Rules of Evidence became effective. [13] Since the early 2000s, an effort had been underway to restyle the Federal Rules of Evidence as well as other federal court rules (e.g. the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). According to a statement by the advisory committee that had drafted the restyled rules ...
The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to evidence law in the United States: Evidence law in the United States – sets forth the areas of contention that generally arise in the presentation of evidence in trial proceedings in the U.S.
The "statements against interest" rule is different because: It is party neutral (the hearsay exemption is party-specific). The declarant must be unavailable. The statement must be against the penal interest (under federal rules of evidence) or the fiscal or social interest (under the rules of states not following the federal rules).
Until the Federal Rules of Evidence were restyled in 2011, Rule 401 defined relevance as follows: "Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
In 2009, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stood before lawmakers and experts at the U.S. Institute of Peace in Washington, D.C., and proclaimed, “Today, Iraq has become a peaceful, democratic country that relies on its democratic institutions.”
The tire expert's testimony rested on such unscientific "observation and experience", and so the Eleventh Circuit reasoned the district court should have made a different ruling based on their legal reasoning over Rule 702 without the Daubert gloss. Kumho Tire asked the Supreme Court to review whether Daubert applied solely to scientific evidence.