enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. 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.

  3. Stop and identify statutes - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

    For example, California "stop and identify" law, Penal Code §647(e) had wording [37] [38] [39] similar to the Nevada law upheld in Hiibel, but a California appellate court, in People v. Solomon (1973), 33 Cal.App.3d 429 construed the law to require "credible and reliable" identification that carries a "reasonable assurance" of its authenticity.

  4. Exclusionary rule - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule

    Criminal procedure. In the United States, the exclusionary rule is a legal rule, based on constitutional law, that prevents evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant 's constitutional rights from being used in a court of law. This may be considered an example of a prophylactic rule formulated by the judiciary in order to ...

  5. Robinson v. California - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson_v._California

    Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), is the first landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution was interpreted to prohibit criminalization of particular acts or conduct, as contrasted with prohibiting the use of a particular form of punishment for a crime.

  6. Horton v. California - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horton_v._California

    Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless seizure of evidence which is in plain view. The discovery of the evidence does not have to be inadvertent, although that is a characteristic of most legitimate plain-view seizures.

  7. Old Chief v. United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Chief_v._United_States

    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 ...

  8. Dead Man's Statute - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Man's_Statute

    Criminal law. v. t. e. A dead man's statute, also known as a dead man act or dead man's rule, is a statute designed to prevent perjury in a civil case by prohibiting a witness who is an interested party from testifying about communications or transactions with a deceased person (a "decedent") against the decedent unless there is a waiver.

  9. Ker v. California - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ker_v._California

    California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963), was a case before the United States Supreme Court, which incorporated the Fourth Amendment's protections against illegal search and seizure. The case was decided on June 10, 1963, by a vote of 5–4.