Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The bulk of the law of evidence regulates the types of evidence that may be sought from witnesses and the manner in which the interrogation of witnesses is conducted such as during direct examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Otherwise types of evidentiary rules specify the standards of persuasion (e.g., proof beyond a reasonable ...
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.
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.
The Supreme Court reversed, and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On remand, the court analyzed the case under the new standard, upholding the district court's original grant of summary judgement for the defendant. [5] After Daubert, it was expected that the range of scientific opinion evidence used in court would be ...
The court decided to grant the writ, based on a lack of recent evidence that the petitioner was competent at the time of the trial. The case was remanded to the district court for a new hearing to evaluate Dusky's competence to stand trial, and for a new trial if he was found competent. [6] The case set the current standard for adjudicative ...
General Electric Co. v. Joiner (1997), [1] which held that a district court judge may exclude expert testimony when there are gaps between the evidence relied on by an expert and that person's conclusion, and that an abuse-of-discretion standard of review is the proper standard for appellate courts to use in reviewing a trial court's decision ...
The court must determine that the scientific evidence is "generally accepted" by a significant portion of the relevant scientific community in order for it to satisfy the Frye standard. This pertains to any methods, ideas, or strategies that could be used during a court case.
The tire expert's testimony rested on such unscientific "observation and experience", and so the Eleventh Circuit reasoned the district court should have made a different ruling based on their legal reasoning over Rule 702 without the Daubert gloss. Kumho Tire asked the Supreme Court to review whether Daubert applied solely to scientific evidence.