Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
With respect to U.S. federal courts, Rule 601 of the Federal Rules of Evidence defers to state law the determination of whether a witness is competent to testify. [1] About half of the U.S. States have enacted a dead man statute, more commonly referred to as the "dead man's rule." Some states have enacted compromise variations to the rule.
Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that "[a]lthough an affidavit supporting a search warrant may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant, the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances relied on by the person providing the information and some ...
The Federal Rules of Evidence states rules regarding a piece of evidence's relevancy and whether or not it is admissible. [7] F.R.E. 402 states relevant evidence is admissible unless otherwise excluded by: "The U.S. Constitution, a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or other rules proscribed by the Supreme Court."
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence 803 (18), either party can introduce a learned treatise as evidence, irrespective of whether it is being used to rebut the opposing party. Such texts are now considered an exception to hearsay, with two limitations: [ 3 ]
This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 602 of the United States Reports: Note: As of August 2024, final bound volumes for the U.S. Supreme Court's United States Reports have been published through volume 579.
Oregon v. Guzek, 546 U.S. 517 (2006) – States may limit the evidence of innocence a defendant may present at his sentencing hearing to evidence already presented at his trial. Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 (2006) – Imposing the death penalty when mitigating and aggravating factors are in equipoise is constitutional. Kansas v.
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).