Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 example of inadmissible evidence is that the prosecution generally cannot present character evidence, such as old convictions for unrelated crimes. Courts have ruled that while past criminal behavior may have probative value (because it increases the probability of future criminal behavior) such evidence is too prejudicial to be allowed, as ...
Under the common law, such evidence was at one time considered hearsay - a statement made out of court being introduced to prove the truth of the statement - and was not admissible except to rebut the testimony of an opposing expert witness. There were four ways to introduce such evidence: [citation needed]
For example, an officer may not enter a suspect's home without a warrant and rely on the plain view doctrine. However, if an officer is inside a suspect's home under an unrelated warrant, he or she may rely on the plain view doctrine, subject to the doctrine's other requirements. [ 17 ]
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."
The suspect's unadvised statement was therefore admissible in evidence because "[i]n a kaleidoscopic situation such as the one confronting these officers, where spontaneity rather than adherence to a police manual is necessarily the order of the day, the application of the exception we recognize today should not be made to depend on post hoc ...
Furthermore, the fact that ESI is admissible for one purpose does not automatically mean that it is also admissible for another purpose. In the case of Lorraine v. Markel, the evidence meets the requirements in these rules as it helps in determining the scope of the arbitration agreement. See also United States v. Safavian on admissibility of e ...
For example, in a DUI case, the prosecutor may not admit evidence of a prior instance of driving impaired to show that the defendant acted in conformity and drove impaired on the day he is charged with doing so. However such evidence may be admissible if the defense has argued the defendant had no knowledge driving impaired was a crime.