Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Rule 602. Need for Personal Knowledge; Rule 603. Oath or Affirmation to Testify Truthfully; Rule 604. Interpreter; Rule 605. Judge's Competency as a Witness; Rule 606. Juror's Competency as a Witness. Rule 607. Who May Impeach a Witness; Rule 608. A Witness's Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness; Rule 609. Impeachment by Evidence of a ...
F.R.E. 602 provides the rule relating to the necessary foundation that must be laid for a witness to testify on a particular matter. [30] [3] The rule states that a sufficient amount of evidence must be proposed to show that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. [30] [3]
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence [FRE 803(1)], [1] a statement of present sense impression is an exception to the prohibition on use of hearsay as evidence at a trial or hearing, and is therefore admissible to prove the truth of the statement itself (i.e. to prove that it was in fact cold at the time the person was speaking, or to prove that ...
Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that before admitting evidence of extrinsic acts under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, federal courts should assess the evidence's sufficiency under Federal Rule of Evidence 104(b). Under 104(b), "[w]hen the relevancy of ...
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 ]
Although the hearsay rule is directed only at references to statements asserted for the truth of their contents, the courts were alive to the dangers of circumstantial as well as direct evidence: [8] the hearsay rule operates in two ways: (a) it forbids using the credit of an absent declarant as the basis of an inference, and (b) it forbids ...
Opinion evidence refers to direct evidence outlining what the expert witness, believes, or infers in regard to facts, as distinguished from personal knowledge of the facts themselves. [1] In common law jurisdictions the general rule is that a witness is supposed to testify as to what was observed and not to give an opinion on what was observed.
A recorded recollection (sometimes referred to as a prior recollection recorded), in the law of evidence, is an exception to the hearsay rule which allows witnesses to testify to the accuracy of a recording or documentation of their own out-of-court statement based on their recollection of the circumstances under which the statement was recorded or documented – even though the witness does ...