jesusreyes88
Mind Map by , created about 6 years ago

2 Evidence I Mind Map on Evidence, created by jesusreyes88 on 09/28/2013.

104
3
0
Tags
jesusreyes88
Created by jesusreyes88 about 6 years ago
Evidence of Gender Inequalities- female disadvantage
Yasmine King
AS Level Edexcel History: Paper 1 Evidence
Big Dave
The Cold War Quiz
Niat Habtemariam
Biology - B1 - AQA - GCSE - Keeping Healthy and Defending Against Infection
Josh Anderson
Anthropology: Culture & Social Conscience
andrea.arellaano
Schizophrenia Research and Evidence
cecollier
Critical Thinking Unit 1 (F501)
jeacur
Police Definitions
James Wishart
Evidence of Ethnic Inequalities
Yasmine King
Evidence
1 606(b) Jurors Competency as Witness

Annotations:

  • Jurors can not testify or make any statements about any incidents that occurred during deliberations, including votes and mental processes, statements or affidavits.  Except: Testimony of extraneous prejudicial information, improper outside influence upon the jury, or a mistake in the verdict form. 
2 Relevance
2.1 General Principles of Relevance
2.1.1 401-Test for relevant evidence

Annotations:

  • Is the evidence relevant?Evidence is relevant if it tends to make a fact of consequence more probable or less probable that it will be without the evidence. Thus, it needs to be probative (tendency to make something more or less probable) and material (substnative)
2.1.2 402- All relevant evidence is admissible if prohibited by: Constitution, other FRE, or SCOTUS ruling. Irrelevant evidence not admissable

Annotations:

  • Is the relevant evidence prohibited by other law such as Constitution, other FRE, or SCOTUS ruling?
2.1.3 403-Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweight by the danger of unfair prejudice

Annotations:

  • Is the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighted by the danger of unfair prejudice?All evidence in inherently prejudicial. However, if relevant evidence "inflames the passion of the jury" as to lead them not to think objectively but instead base their decision on their emotion or make the jury waste time, delay, confusion, misleading or tends to distract the jury from the proper issues. This test favors admission. for close calls the curt can compromise meaning order a limiting intruction on the evidence. unfair prejudice: an undue tendency to suggest decisions on improper basis confronting issues:tends to distract the jury from the proper issues Misleading the jury: possibility that the jury might attach undue weight to the evidence. e.g. poligraph evidence, government reports. Undue delay: unreasonable delay.  
2.1.4 Rule 104- Preliminary questions

Annotations:

  • A) in general the court must decide any preliminary question about wether a witness is qualified, a privilage exist, or evidence is admissable. the court in so deciding is not bound by the rules except on the issue of privilage. B) For relevance of evidence that depens on a fact (that needs to be proven to be true) proof must be introduced sufficient to support that the fact does exist. evidence may be intorduced on the condition that is proven later. Admissability of evidence is subject to the preponderance of evidence (huddleston- 51%) standard.
2.2 Specialized Relevance Rules
2.2.1 407- Evidence of subsequent remedial measures is prohibited

Annotations:

  • Is poof of subsequent remedies being offer? FRE prohibits subsequent remedial evidence from being offer to prove negligence, culpable conduct; defect of a product or its design, or need for warning. Except: "other purposes" such as impeachment, or to prove ownership, control, feasability (if disputed) <whether there was a better alterntive, only if diputed.> Policy: remedial measures is usually weak evidence of negligence. futheremore, the law wants to encourage remedies
2.2.2 408- Compromise and Offers of Negotiation are prohibited

Annotations:

  • Is the evidence sought proof of compromise or offer of negotiation? If so, it is prohibited. However if it is to prove other things such as witness bias, lack of undue delay or obstruction of criminal investigation, then is admisable.
2.2.3 409- Evidence of Medical Expenses

Annotations:

  • Is the evidence of medical expenses, hospital payment ocationed by the injury or similar expenses e.g. ambulance services,being offered to prove liability of the injury?If so is inaddmisible. Policy: we don't want to discourage people from assisting others in paying for medical expenses.However, incidental statements, conduct accopmpanying payment or offer is not protected.
2.2.4 410- Pleas, Plea discussions, related statements

Annotations:

  • Is the evidence from a plea being used to prove culpability?If so, that is prohibited. plea regarding pleas after they've been witdrawn; nolo contendered plea, statememnt to prosecuring athorities if it didnt reuslt in a plea. However, they will be allowed if:a) statement from the same plea discussion is intorduced and fairness requires b) in criminal proceeding for perjury or false statement , if under oath, on the record and with counsel present. Policy: Assures defendant that their statement and actions will not redound to their detriment . People will be open to negotiation.
2.2.5 411- Evidence of Liability insurance is not admissable

Annotations:

  • Liability Insurance is not admissable to prove that a person acted negligently or wrongfully. The policy behind this is that being insured or not has litle bearing on the degree of care someone exercises, and such information is highly prejudicial. Exception:To prove bias, proof of agency, ownership, control or bias, establish why a safety inspection was made or "other causes". All exceptions must be scrutinized under the 403 balancing test. Policy: It aims to avoid bias against insurance policies w/ "deep pockets".
2.2.6 Path of Analysis for rules 407-4011
2.2.6.1 FRE 401
2.2.6.1.1 FRE 402
2.2.6.1.1.1 FRE 407-411
2.2.6.1.1.1.1 Evidence is being offered to culpability, liability, injury,negligence, crime
2.2.6.1.1.1.1.1 Not admissable
2.2.6.1.1.1.2 Evidence is being offered to prove "other things"
2.2.6.1.1.1.2.1 Does it pass the 403 balancing test?
2.2.6.1.1.1.2.1.1 No, then indaddmissable
2.2.6.1.1.1.2.1.2 If it passes 403, then admissable
2.2.6.1.2 104- If condition of fact is needed to admit evidence
2.2.7 104- Preliminary question

Annotations:

  • Rule 104. Preliminary Questions (a) In General. The court must decide any preliminary question about whether a witness is qualified, a privilege exists, or evidence is admissible. In so deciding, the court is not bound by evidence rules, except those on privilege.(b) Relevance That Depends on a Fact. When the relevance of evidence depends on whether a fact exists, proof must be introduced sufficient to support a finding that the fact does exist. The court may admit the proposed evidence on the condition that the proof be introduced later.(c) Conducting a Hearing So That the Jury Cannot Hear It. The court must conduct any hearing on a preliminary question so that the jury cannot hear it if:(1) the hearing involves the admissibility of a confession;(2) a defendant in a criminal case is a witness and so requests; or(3) justice so requires.(d) Cross-Examining a Defendant in a Criminal Case. By testifying on a preliminary question, a defendant in a criminal case does not become subject to cross-examination on other issues in the case.(e) Evidence Relevant to Weight and Credibility. This rule does not limit a party’s right to introduce before the jury evidence that is relevant to the weight or credibility of other evidence.
2.3 Character Evidence
2.3.1 404- Character Propensity Rule (character Evidence/ Character Trait) "propensity box"

Annotations:

  • 1. Prohibited use: evidence of a person's character or character trait is not admissable to prove that on a particular ocation the person acted in accordance with the character trait.Policy: danger that the jury will punish def. because they deserve punishment, not because they are guiltyof a crime2. Exception for a defendant or victim in a criminal case. the following exceptions apply in a crimnal case:A. A defendant may offer evidence of the defendant's pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it.B. Subject to the limitation in 412, a defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victim's trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it;C. in a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the alleged victim's trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the agressor.In a Civil case Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissable to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular ocasion the person acted in accordance with the character. BUT evidence may be admissable under "other purposes" such as motive, opportunity, intent, plan, knowledge AND must be done before trial. 3.Evidence of a Witness character may be admitted under 607, 608, 609.protection from the danger of character evidence:404402403Limiting instructionsAquital dosent mean that it cant be used for relevancy. If the court does allow the evidence the def is entitled to make (a timely) limiting instruction for the jury to use the evidence only for the correct purpose. Past acts can be used to prove intent, al evidence must be run through 403
2.3.1.1 405- When admissable, character evidence may be proved by repurtation or opinion

Annotations:

  • Is the character evidence being offered in the form of opinion or repuration?Do you know= opinionHave you heard= reputationPolicy: probative value outweights danger of unfair prejudice ANALYSIS 1) Are they trying to show evidence to show that they acted in accordance to their character? No? then, Admissable Yes? then, does it meet the exceptions (pretty much all involving def. being allowed to offer evidence and only then allowing prosecutor to rebut it? Yes? admissable No? unadmissable
2.3.1.2 Witness Character subject to 607, 608, 609
2.3.1.2.1 Impeachment and Character for Truthfulness
2.3.1.2.1.1 Rule 607- any party can attack witness credibility
2.3.1.2.1.2 Rule 608- witness character for truthfulness or untruthfulness

Annotations:

  • Either party may offer evidence of a witness's character for truthfullness. the opponent may then rebut the evidence of thr witness character for truthfulness. in either event the must take in the form of opinion or reputation. On cross examination a party may ask a witness about specific instances of the conduct of a witness to attack or support the witness character fro truthfulness. here permitted inference is that the person's past lies  are evidence of her general bad character for truthfulness and that , acting in comformity with that character trait , she is lying now. The big idea of 608(b) is that it bars against extrinsic evidence and applies only to evidence offered 
2.3.1.2.1.3 609-Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction

Annotations:

  • This rule permits the opposing counsel to  impeach witness with evidence of their past crimes. If it is a felony  it must be subject to two factors: 1) Civil Cases - the 403 balancing test - the witness can not be the def. 2) Criminal Cases 403 balancing test 3) For any crime as long as the court can determine establishing the elements of the crime required by proving or the witness admitting a dishonest act or false statement. 4) Evidence can not be introduced if the crime took place 10yrs after conviction/release of confinment (wichever one is later)  except if it passes the 403 test and there is proper notice. 5) evidence of a conviction is not permitted if it involved a pardon, anulment, aquittal (basically if the person was not convicted of the charges against her) 6) Juvenile adjudication/settlement/verdict can only be introduced if it is offered in a criminal case , adjudication was on a witness other than the defendant , if it was an adult's case it would be admissable to attack his credibility  and is necessary to fairly determine guilt or innocense.  7) A conviction is admissable even if an appeal is pending. evidence of pendency is also admissable. 
2.3.2 413- Similar Crimes in Sexual assault cases

Annotations:

  • In sexual assault criminal cases evidence that the defendant committed other sexual assaults is admissable and considered relevant, yet this evidence must be presented to the defendant's counsel 15 days prior. Sexual assault is defined sexual contact without consent as prohibited by 18 USC 109A
2.3.3 414- Child molestation

Annotations:

  • Previous child molestation instances are always relevant and admissable. defendants counsel must be put on adequate notice. "Child" is a person below age 14 "child molestation" sexual contact between the child and the def. perpetrated by def.
2.3.4 415- Civil Cases involving sexual assault or child molestation

Annotations:

  • Same as 413 (sexual assault cases), 414 (child molestation) but it also applies to civil cases.
2.3.5 406- Habit evidence may be admitted

Annotations:

  • habit may be offer that the person acted in accord with the habit or routine. Corroboration or eyewitness not required.
2.4 Rape Shield laws
2.4.1 Rule 412 -Rape Shield Law

Annotations:

  • In Criminal and Civil trial, evidence to prove that the victim engaged in other sexual behavior or to prove the victims sexual predisposition is not allowed except if: In a criminal case:  the def. uses it to prove that someone else did it, or that it was consensual or that not allowing the evidence will exclude the defendant from his constitutional right. In civil cases: the evidence may be admitted if probabtive value outweights substnatial  danger of unfair prejudice (403)
3 RELAIBILITY
3.1 Witnesses
3.1.1 601- Competency. everyone is compenent unless FRE or state rules provide otherwise
3.1.2 602- witnesses can only testify on personal knowledge

Annotations:

  • This rule doesn't apply to experts under 703
3.1.3 603- Oath or affirmation to testify truthfully is required of every witness
3.1.4 Religious belives or opinion is not admissable to support or attack witness credibility
3.2 Hearsay

Annotations:

  • Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience nor can it be adequately substantiated.[1] When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, "hearsay" can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such information as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Such use of "hearsay evidence" in court is generally not allowed. This prohibition is called the hearsay rule. For example, a witness says "Susan told me Tom was in town" as the witness's evidence to the fact that Tom was in town. Since the witness does not offer in this statement the personal knowledge of the fact, this witness statement would be hearsay evidence to the fact that Tom was in town, and not admissible. Only when Susan testifies herself in the current judicial proceeding that she saw Tom in town, that Susan's testimony becomes admissible evidence to the fact that Tom was in town. However, a witness statement "Susan told me Tom was in town" can be admissible as evidence in the case against Susan when she is accused of spreading defamatory rumors about Tom, because now the witness has personal knowledge of the fact that Susan said (i.e., pronounced the defamatory words) "Tom was in town" in the presence of the witness and it is an opposing party’s statement that constitutes a verbal act.[2][3] Double hearsay is when a hearsay statement offered as evidence contains another hearsay statement. For example, a witness wants to testify that: "a very reliable man informed me that Wools-Sampson told him". The statements of the very reliable man and Wools-Sampson are both hearsay submissions on the part of the witness, and the second hearsay (the statement of Wools-Sampson) depends on the first (the statement of the very reliable man). In a court, both layers of hearsay must be found separately admissible. In this example, the first hearsay also comes from ananonymous source and the admissibility of an anonymous statement requires additional legal burden of proof. Many jurisdictions that generally disallow hearsay evidence in courts permit the more widespread use of hearsay in non-judicial hearings. Now, direct witness testimony is allowed and is presumed to be true because of the 3 hurdles or filters: the oath, demeanor evidence (jurors perception whether someone is lying or not) and cross-examination. 
3.2.1 801 - Hearsay & Exclusion from Hersay

Annotations:

  • Rule 801. Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay The following definitions apply under this article:(a) Statement. “Statement” means a person’s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion.(b) Declarant. “Declarant” means the person who made the statement.(c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” means a statement that:(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.(d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay:(1) A Declarant-Witness’s Prior Statement. The declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination about a prior statement, and the statement:(A) is inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony and was given under penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition;(B) is consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or motive in so testifying; or(C) identifies a person as someone the declarant perceived earlier.(2) An Opposing Party’s Statement. The statement is offered against an opposing party and:(A) was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity;(B) is one the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true;(C) was made by a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject;(D) was made by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed; or(E) was made by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.The statement must be considered but does not by itself establish the declarant’s authority under (C); the existence or scope of the relationship under (D); or the existence of the conspiracy or participation in it under (E).
3.2.2 The Hearsay flowchart
3.2.2.1 FRE 401
3.2.2.1.1 FRE 402
3.2.2.1.1.1 Evidence of out-of-court words or conduct
3.2.2.1.1.1.1 If offered to prove what the out of court speaker's actor intended to communicate
3.2.2.1.1.1.1.1 Hearsay
3.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Is the hearsay addmissable under the under the exception to the inclusion rule?
3.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 would if pass the 403 balancing test?
3.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 If No, Unadmissable under FRE 802
3.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Yes, then admissable
3.2.2.1.1.1.2 If offered to prove the effect on the listener/ observer or anything else
3.2.2.1.1.1.2.1 would it pass 403?
3.2.2.1.1.1.2.1.1 admissable
3.2.3 Common non-hearsay purposes

Annotations:

  • 1) To prove the impact of the statement on someone who heard it 2) to prove a legal right or duty that triggered by an offense that was caused by uttering the statement and to impeach the declarant's later, in court testimony
3.2.4 Exceptions of Hersay

Annotations:

  • The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him". "Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."[2] Per Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(a), a statement made by a defendant is admissible as evidence only if it is inculpatory; exculpatorystatements made to an investigator are hearsay and therefore may not be admitted as evidence in court, unless the defendant testifies.[4] When an out-of-court statement offered as evidence contains another out-of-court statement it is called double hearsay, and both layers of hearsay must be found separately admissible.[5] There are several exceptions to the rule against hearsay in U.S. law.[2] Federal Rule of Evidence 803 lists the following: Statement against interestPresent sense impressions and Excited utterancesThen existing mental, emotional, or physical condition[when defined as?]Medical diagnosis or treatmentRecorded recollectionRecords of regularly conducted activityPublic records and reports, as well as absence of entry in recordsRecords of vital statisticsAbsence of public record or entryRecords of religious organizationsMarriage, baptismal, and similar certificates, and Family and Property recordsStatements in documents affecting an interest in propertyStatements in ancient documents the authenticity of which can be established.Market reports, commercial publications"Learned treatises"Reputation concerning personal or family history, boundaries, or general history, or as to characterJudgment of previous conviction, and as to personal, family or general history, or boundaries.[2] Also, some documents are self-authenticating under Rule 902, such as (1) domestic public documents under seal, (2) domestic public documents not under seal, but bearing a signature of a public officer, (3) foreign public documents, (4) certified copies of public records, (5) official publications, (6) newspapers and periodicals, (7) trade inscriptions and the like, (8) acknowledged documents (i.e. by a notary public), (9) commercial paper and related documents, (10) presumptions under Acts of Congress, (11) certified domestic records of regularly conducted activity, (12) certified foreign records of regularly conducted activity.[2]
3.2.5 802- Exceptions to the rule against Hearsay

Annotations:

  • Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay — Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:(1) Present Sense Impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.(2) Excited Utterance. A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.(3) Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) or emotional, sensory, or physical condition (such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the validity or terms of the declarant’s will.(4) Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment. A statement that:(A) is made for — and is reasonably pertinent to — medical diagnosis or treatment; and(B) describes medical history; past or present symptoms or sensations; their inception; or their general cause.(5) Recorded Recollection. A record that:(A) is on a matter the witness once knew about but now cannot recall well enough to testify fully and accurately;(B) was made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’s memory; and(C) accurately reflects the witness’s knowledge.If admitted, the record may be read into evidence but may be received as an exhibit only if offered by an adverse party.(6) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis if:(A) the record was made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge;(B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;(C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity;(D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and(E) neither the source of information nor the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.(7) Absence of a Record of a Regularly Conducted Activity. Evidence that a matter is not included in a record described in paragraph (6) if:(A) the evidence is admitted to prove that the matter did not occur or exist;(B) a record was regularly kept for a matter of that kind; and(C) neither the possible source of the information nor other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.(8) Public Records. A record or statement of a public office if:(A) it sets out:(i) the office’s activities;(ii) a matter observed while under a legal duty to report, but not including, in a criminal case, a matter observed by law-enforcement personnel; or(iii) in a civil case or against the government in a criminal case, factual findings from a legally authorized investigation; and(B) neither the source of information nor other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.(9) Public Records of Vital Statistics. A record of a birth, death, or marriage, if reported to a public office in accordance with a legal duty.(10) Absence of a Public Record. Testimony — or a certification under Rule 902 — that a diligent search failed to disclose a public record or statement if the testimony or certification is admitted to prove that:(A) the record or statement does not exist; or(B) a matter did not occur or exist, if a public office regularly kept a record or statement for a matter of that kind.(11) Records of Religious Organizations Concerning Personal or Family History. A statement of birth, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, divorce, death, relationship by blood or marriage, or similar facts of personal or family history, contained in a regularly kept record of a religious organization.(12) Certificates of Marriage, Baptism, and Similar Ceremonies. A statement of fact contained in a certificate:(A) made by a person who is authorized by a religious organization or by law to perform the act certified;(B) attesting that the person performed a marriage or similar ceremony or administered a sacrament; and(C) purporting to have been issued at the time of the act or within a reasonable time after it.(13) Family Records. A statement of fact about personal or family history contained in a family record, such as a Bible, genealogy, chart, engraving on a ring, inscription on a portrait, or engraving on an urn or burial marker.(14) Records of Documents That Affect an Interest in Property. The record of a document that purports to establish or affect an interest in property if:(A) the record is admitted to prove the content of the original recorded document, along with its signing and its delivery by each person who purports to have signed it;(B) the record is kept in a public office; and(C) a statute authorizes recording documents of that kind in that office.(15) Statements in Documents That Affect an Interest in Property. A statement contained in a document that purports to establish or affect an interest in property if the matter stated was relevant to the document’s purpose — unless later dealings with the property are inconsistent with the truth of the statement or the purport of the document.(16) Statements in Ancient Documents. A statement in a document that is at least 20 years old and whose authenticity is established.(17) Market Reports and Similar Commercial Publications. Market quotations, lists, directories, or other compilations that are generally relied on by the public or by persons in particular occupations.(18) Statements in Learned Treatises, Periodicals, or Pamphlets. A statement contained in a treatise, periodical, or pamphlet if:(A) the statement is called to the attention of an expert witness on cross-examination or relied on by the expert on direct examination; and(B) the publication is established as a reliable authority by the expert’s admission or testimony, by another expert’s testimony, or by judicial notice.If admitted, the statement may be read into evidence but not received as an exhibit.(19) Reputation Concerning Personal or Family History. A reputation among a person’s family by blood, adoption, or marriage — or among a person’s associates or in the community — concerning the person’s birth, adoption, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, divorce, death, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, or similar facts of personal or family history.(20) Reputation Concerning Boundaries or General History. A reputation in a community — arising before the controversy — concerning boundaries of land in the community or customs that affect the land, or concerning general historical events important to that community, state, or nation.(21) Reputation Concerning Character. A reputation among a person’s associates or in the community concerning the person’s character.(22) Judgment of a Previous Conviction. Evidence of a final judgment of conviction if:(A) the judgment was entered after a trial or guilty plea, but not a nolo contendere plea;(B) the conviction was for a crime punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than a year;(C) the evidence is admitted to prove any fact essential to the judgment; and(D) when offered by the prosecutor in a criminal case for a purpose other than impeachment, the judgment was against the defendant.The pendency of an appeal may be shown but does not affect admissibility.(23) Judgments Involving Personal, Family, or General History, or a Boundary. A judgment that is admitted to prove a matter of personal, family, or general history, or boundaries, if the matter:(A) was essential to the judgment; and(B) could be proved by evidence of reputation.(24) [Other Exceptions .] [Transferred to Rule 807.]
3.2.5.1 804
3.2.5.2 803
3.2.5.3 806
3.2.5.4 612
3.2.5.5 807
3.2.5.6 Confrontation Clause
3.2.6 802- The Rule against hearsay

Annotations:

  • Hearsay is not admissable unless any of the folowing provide otherwise: a federal statue, other FRE rules, or other rules prescribed by SCOTUS.
3.2.7 104- Preliminary Questions

Annotations:

  • Rule 104. Preliminary Questions (a) In General. The court must decide any preliminary question about whether a witness is qualified, a privilege exists, or evidence is admissible. In so deciding, the court is not bound by evidence rules, except those on privilege.(b) Relevance That Depends on a Fact. When the relevance of evidence depends on whether a fact exists, proof must be introduced sufficient to support a finding that the fact does exist. The court may admit the proposed evidence on the condition that the proof be introduced later.(c) Conducting a Hearing So That the Jury Cannot Hear It. The court must conduct any hearing on a preliminary question so that the jury cannot hear it if:(1) the hearing involves the admissibility of a confession;(2) a defendant in a criminal case is a witness and so requests; or(3) justice so requires.(d) Cross-Examining a Defendant in a Criminal Case. By testifying on a preliminary question, a defendant in a criminal case does not become subject to cross-examination on other issues in the case.(e) Evidence Relevant to Weight and Credibility. This rule does not limit a party’s right to introduce before the jury evidence that is relevant to the weight or credibility of other evidence.
3.3 Confrontation and Compulsory Process
3.3.1 Compulsory Clause
3.4 Lay Opinion and Expert Testimony
3.4.1 701
3.4.2 702
3.4.3 704
3.4.4 703
3.5 Authentification and indentification
3.5.1 901
3.5.2 902
3.5.3 1001
3.5.4 1002
4 Privilages
4.1 Husband-Wife
4.2 Lawyer- Client

Media attachments