enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Relevance (law) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_(law)

    However, relevant evidence is not admissible if prohibited by the Constitution, an Act of Congress, by the Federal Rules of Evidence, or by rules prescribed by the Supreme Court. [8] Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, relevant evidence may be excluded on the basis of enumerated grounds.

  3. California Evidence Code - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Evidence_Code

    The California Evidence Code (abbreviated to Evid. Code in the California Style Manual) is a California code that was enacted by the California State Legislature on May 18, 1965 [1] to codify the formerly mostly common-law law of evidence. Section 351 of the Code effectively abolished any remnants of the law of evidence not explicitly included ...

  4. Public policy doctrines for the exclusion of relevant evidence

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policy_doctrines...

    A subsequent remedial measure is an improvement, repair, or safety measure made after an injury has occurred. FRE 407 [dead link ‍] prohibits the admission of evidence of subsequent remedial measures to show defendant's (1) negligence; (2) culpable conduct; (3) a defect in defendant's product; (4) defect in the design of defendant's product; or (5) the need for a warning or instruction.

  5. Admissible evidence - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admissible_evidence

    The general rule in evidence is that all relevant evidence is admissible and all irrelevant evidence is inadmissible, though some countries (such as the United States and, to an extent, Australia) proscribe the prosecution from exploiting evidence obtained in violation of constitutional law, thereby rendering relevant evidence inadmissible ...

  6. 1982 California Proposition 8 - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_California_Proposition_8

    The U.S. Constitution takes priority over the California constitution so courts may still be obliged to exclude evidence under the federal Bill of Rights. In practice the law prevented the California courts from interpreting the state constitution so as to impose an exclusionary rule more strict than that required by the federal constitution. [3]

  7. Evidence (law) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_(law)

    Federal Rule 403 allows relevant evidence to be excluded "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice", if it leads to confusion of the issues, if it is misleading or if it is a waste of time. California Evidence Code section 352 also allows for exclusion to avoid "substantial danger of undue prejudice."

  8. Frye standard - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frye_standard

    In United States law, the Frye standard, Frye test, or general acceptance test is a judicial test used in some U.S. state courts to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence. It provides that expert opinion based on a scientific technique is admissible only when the technique is generally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific ...

  9. Rochin v. California - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochin_v._California

    The appeals court denied his defense arguing that the evidence was admissible, despite the egregious behavior of the officers, as it was "competent evidence," and the courts are not allowed to question the means in which it was obtained. As the court wrote, "illegally obtained evidence is admissible on a criminal charge in this state." [4]