Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In the majority of U.S. jurisdictions, prior inconsistent statements may not be introduced to prove the truth of the prior statement itself, as this constitutes hearsay, but only to impeach the credibility of the witness. However, under Federal Rule of Evidence 801 and the minority of U.S. jurisdictions that have adopted this rule, a prior ...
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, res gestae may formerly have been, but is no longer, an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence based on the belief that, because certain statements are made naturally, spontaneously, and without deliberation during the course of an event, they leave little room for misunderstanding or ...
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is a Latin [2] maxim [3] meaning "false in one thing, false in everything". [4] At common law, it is the legal principle that a witness who falsely testifies about one matter is not credible to testify about any matter. [5]
In law, a witness is someone who, either voluntarily or under compulsion, provides testimonial evidence, either oral or written, of what they know or claim to know.. A witness might be compelled to provide testimony in court, before a grand jury, before an administrative tribunal, before a deposition officer, or in a variety of other legal proceedings.
For evidence to be admissible enough to be admitted, the party proffering the evidence must be able to show that the source of the evidence makes it so. If evidence is in the form of witness testimony, the party that introduces the evidence must lay the groundwork for the witness's credibility and knowledge.
An expert witness is a witness, who by virtue of education, training, skill, or experience, is believed to have expertise and specialised knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially and legally rely upon the witness's specialized (scientific, technical or other) opinion about an evidence or fact issue within the scope of his ...
In the United States federal courts, a cross-examining attorney is generally limited by Rule 611 of the Federal Rules of Evidence to the "subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the witness's credibility". The rule also permits the trial court, in its discretion, to "allow inquiry into additional matters as if on direct ...
One important rule that applies to the expert witness but not the percipient witness is the exception to the hearsay rule. A percipient witness tells only what he/she actually knows about a case and nothing more. Percipient witnesses cannot give opinions nor conjecture regarding a hypothetical set of conditions. [6]