Federal Rules of Evidence Essays

elt the need to update the rules dealing with presentation of scientific evidence, and did so in the landmark ruling Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals.This today is still the cited case when dealing with scientific evidence, but we must also observe what led up to Daubert, i.e. Frye and the Federal Rules of Evidence, to allow a greater understanding into the Computer Evidence v. Daubert discussion. In 1923 in the case of Frye, where the evidence in question was that obtained from a device akin

Privileges, presumptions, and judicial notices seem to be misunderstood when dealing with court issues. There are many interpretations of these terms as they are defined within the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE). The common issues that come up are in reference to when certain privileges apply; when presumptions can be used in evidence; and how judicial notices apply, what their boundaries are, and what can or cannot be noticed. This paper will look at privileges, presumptions, and judicial notices and define

declarant testifying in the court, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Multiple hearsay A multiple hearsay issue exists where a hearsay statement is made within another hearsay statement. In order to enter multiple hearsays into evidence, each layer of the hearsay statement must qualify for an exception. Here, multiple hearsay issues may be observed in this report: • The physician’s notes indicated in bolded statements in the parentheses within the report, • Dr. Parish at Mary

are likely to be admissible under the Federal Rule of Evidence 803. Hearsay is a statement that the declarant makes at a time other than while testifying at the current trial or hearing (i.e., an out-of-court statement) that is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). Hearsay evidence generally is inadmissible unless it falls within an exception or exclusion set out in the Federal Rules, a federal statute, or a Supreme Court rule. (Fed. R. Evid. 802.). However, hearsay

accepting-constructive-criticismAs a Givat Shmuel "lifer", and one of the more vocal (read: in-your-face) members of the community, I get tens of questions, comments, and critique in a given week, a good amount pertaining to life in Givat Shmuel, and the going-ons of the GSC. So in an effort to clear the air and set the record straight, I've taken it upon myself to discuss some of the biggest critiques and misconceptions about community life, and the nonprofit that works tirelessly to help sustain

court are the defense attorney, the district attorney (prosecutor) and the judge. These three actors have a common goal to enforce the law and to give justice to those who deserve it. Each lawyer has a set of rules to establish professional conduct in the courtroom during a trial. These rules are the responsibilities and duties each lawyer must

Objections that the prosecution and/or defense should have been made. On page 1, line 22 the objection would be that under Federal Rule of Evidence Rules 405(a) and 608(a). There can only be testimony as to a point of view or the character and not testimony in support of the point of view. Leading to the questioning of the witness to his point of view, of his reputation is the witness' statement of the point of view that is not permitted. On page 2, lines 12 and 13 with reference to the statement

due process clause and apply the exclusionary rule in state cases. In this essay, I am going to discuss the reason why the Supreme Court determine that the exclusionary rule should apply to the state police activity. Prior to the case of Weeks v United States, the state police activity “were not limited in their conduct by the Fourth Amendment” (Ingram p.81) and the exclusionary rule of Fourth Amendments illegal search and seizure only applies to federal law enforcement officers. Basically, it means

individual’s rights, then the evidence seized by the police against that person becomes admissible. However, the idea of punishment for police officers who violate the rights of the people was never implemented into the Constitution. This concept was created by the Supreme Court through many cases. In the case of Wolf v. Colorado (1949), Julius A. Wolf was arrested and charged with conspiracy to perform an abortion. The officers invaded Wolf’s clinic without a warrant and obtained evidence to use against him

CHAPTER IV Admissible evidence in civil proceedings Any evidence, to be admissible, must be relevant. The rules on evidence contained primarily within Parts 32 and 33 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 give the court power to control the evidence brought before it. For example, the court may decide, prior to trial, that a particular issue between the parties is no longer important and can therefore make an order excluding any evidence that the parties intended to use in relation to that particular

The case of Mapp vs Ohio set forth the precedence of the Exclusionary Rule. (Supreme Court, 1961) During this altercation the police wanted to search Miss Mapp's home in search of a suspect that was believed to be hiding there that was connected with a bombing case and may have been storing policy paraphernalia there. (Supreme Court, 1961). After contacting her attorney Miss Mapp denied their search. Only to have them return several hours later with a piece of paper claiming that it was a search

(1914), but only the federal cases were affected. It didn’t touch the state courts until Mapp v Ohio (1961). It was because of Mapp v Ohio that Wolf v. Colorado (1949) was overturned. The exclusionary rule is a safeguard for the deterrence of police participating in illegal search and seizures. The exclusionary rule states that any evidence obtained by illegal search and seizure or information derived from the evidence from an illegal search and seizure will be inadmissible

Respondent 's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. It is further as well addressing evidence rule 405 the order of that Petitioner 's application for federal writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED. It is further as well the ordered that Petitioner 's Motion for Evidentiary Hearing is DENIED. It is further any motions not previously ruled upon by the Court are DENIED. The court found that originally rule of was not applied having considered the findings and conclusions set forth above

D. Ohio’s Evid.R. 403 Unlike its federal counterpart, the Ohio evidentiary rule 403 is separated into two sections: (a) mandatory exclusion and (b) discretionary exclusion. Even relevant evidence “is not admissible” when the probative value is substantially outweighed by evidence that (i) is unfairly prejudicial, (ii) confuses the issues, or (iii) misleads the jury. This clear language promulgated by the Ohio rule-makers establishes greater protections for defendants, and strips trial courts of

Federal court processes have four steps, the frist step is the initial stages, the second is the pre-trial proceedings, the third step is the trial and guilty pleas and the final step is sentencing and post-judgment proceedings. Criminal cases are process through a clerk office which is tied to the federal court. The clerks office aids the court by processing criminal cases through the federal system in a timely order. The clerks office help both parties in the producers by organizing and followed

electronic or digital evidence. Electronic or digital evidence is information stored or transmitted and it may be need in court. This evidence can be found on a hard drive, cell phone, digital camera, Internet software program, etc. One of the most elusive criminals, the BTK serial killer, was able to be captured and prosecuted due to a floppy disk. However, for computer records to be admissible in federal courts, the information has to be listed as potential hearsay. Federal courts view computer

the top. Both federal and state trial courts are designed to hear evidence, conduct fact-finding, and apply the law to support court decisions. The appellate courts exist to determine whether previous decisions made by trial courts were conducted in accordance with the law and any evidence presented by litigants. Furthermore, both federal and state courts use a jury system and appoint judges to preside over cases and make decisions based on the law and any evidence presented. Federal vs. State Courts

The title of Chapter 2 is "Criminal Courts, Pretrial Processes, and the Exclusionary Rule." The chapter begins with a description of the structure of the U.S. court system, which is a dual court system. A dual court system means that there are both federal- and state-level courts who operate within their own jurisdictions. The United States District Court is the trial court for the federal system. There are ninety-four district courts in the U.S., with each state having at least one. The United

Law enforcement and correctional officers daily cope with delicate situations. When faced with an unique, possible deadly situation requires an immediate and appropriate response. We have learned thus far that law enforcement and correctional officers employ a great amount of discretion on a daily basis when performing their duties. Misuse of discretion can lead to society questioning police tactics and policies. Racial profiling is an illustration of misuse of discretion. It is known as the inclusion

determined that there was a high level of Acetone found in the debris after the fire. Acetone is a highly flammable accelerant that can be used to help fires spread quickly through buildings. It is very rare and its distribution is tightly controlled by federal regulations.Special Agent Alicia Masters was in charge of the case. Her investigation quickly led to Storm. Storm was convicted of felony arson in 2001 after he used Acetone to burn down a chemical