Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require objections during a deposition to be stated "concisely in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner." Speaking objections nonetheless occur in practice and are sometimes used, with caution, to communicate the nature of the objection to a party without a legal background. [10]
In the United States, Article II of the Federal Rules of Evidence ("FRE") addresses judicial notice in federal courts, and this article is widely copied by U.S. States. Article II of the FRE consists of a single rule, Rule 201. [ 3 ]
First adopted in 1975, the Federal Rules of Evidence codify the evidence law that applies in United States federal courts. [1] In addition, many states in the United States have either adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence, with or without local variations, or have revised their own evidence rules or codes to at least partially follow the federal rules.
Although Rule 611(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence (and comparable rules of many states) do not prohibit leading questions on re-direct, some [which?] states have expressly limited the use of leading questions on re-direct. As a practical matter, it rests within the trial court's discretion as to what leading questions may be asked on re-direct.
However, under Federal Rule of Evidence 801 and the minority of U.S. jurisdictions that have adopted this rule, a prior inconsistent statement may be introduced as evidence of the truth of the statement itself if the prior statement was given in live testimony and under oath as part of a formal hearing, proceeding, trial, or deposition. [2]
In the American legal system, argumentative is an evidentiary objection raised in response to a question which prompts a witness to draw inferences from facts of the case. [1] A lawyer on direct examination asks his witness, a layman with no legal training, "So John Doe was driving negligently?" Opposing counsel could raise an argumentative ...
Special counsel Jack Smith has charged former President Donald Trump in a superseding indictment in his federal election interference case that charges him with the same offenses in the original ...
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 ...