Federal Rules of Evidence
DISCUSSION FORUM _ LESSON 4
1. Summarize the Federal Rules of Evidence in your own words.
The Federal Rules of Evidence (F.R.E.) enacted in 1975 and replaced prior centuries of various and sundry judge made caselaw. The F.R.E. is a complex set of statutes or penal codes legislated with the intent of replacing unfair evidentiary submission and/or unnecessary expense and delay among the courts. The basic concept behind the F.R.E. is the need for a consistent and predictable federal rule set that would promote fairness and ensure justice. These rules also allow a measure of consistency and reliability applied in a civil or criminal matter.
Indicate in your post whether the following pieces of evidence would be admissible or inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence:
2. During a trial, an eyewitness was asked if they had ever been arrested. Is this a proper question? Why or why not? Cite the Federal Rule of Evidence that governs this issue. This may or may not be a proper question, again, depending upon context and the judge. However, a witness may not be accredited until he has first been impeached. Under the federal rules, any party may impeach any witness at any time. Fed. Rules Evid. 607.
A witness's credibility could traditionally be impeached by inquiry into any of nine areas.
The first four of these nine areas relate to the requirements of competence. They are:
1. The firmness and sincerity of the witness's belief that any violation of his oath could have eternal consequences. (Although, this method is probably no longer applicable) Fed. Rules Evid. 610.
2. The quality of witness's perception or ability to perceive.
3. The witness's ability to remember.
4. The accuracy of the witness's communication of what he perceived.
The cross-examiner may always inquire into these four areas without having any basis whatever for believing that there is any infirmity in the witness's testimony. For example, one could ask a witness
1. Summarize the Federal Rules of Evidence in your own words.
The Federal Rules of Evidence (F.R.E.) enacted in 1975 and replaced prior centuries of various and sundry judge made caselaw. The F.R.E. is a complex set of statutes or penal codes legislated with the intent of replacing unfair evidentiary submission and/or unnecessary expense and delay among the courts. The basic concept behind the F.R.E. is the need for a consistent and predictable federal rule set that would promote fairness and ensure justice. These rules also allow a measure of consistency and reliability applied in a civil or criminal matter.
Indicate in your post whether the following pieces of evidence would be admissible or inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence:
2. During a trial, an eyewitness was asked if they had ever been arrested. Is this a proper question? Why or why not? Cite the Federal Rule of Evidence that governs this issue. This may or may not be a proper question, again, depending upon context and the judge. However, a witness may not be accredited until he has first been impeached. Under the federal rules, any party may impeach any witness at any time. Fed. Rules Evid. 607.
A witness's credibility could traditionally be impeached by inquiry into any of nine areas.
The first four of these nine areas relate to the requirements of competence. They are:
1. The firmness and sincerity of the witness's belief that any violation of his oath could have eternal consequences. (Although, this method is probably no longer applicable) Fed. Rules Evid. 610.
2. The quality of witness's perception or ability to perceive.
3. The witness's ability to remember.
4. The accuracy of the witness's communication of what he perceived.
The cross-examiner may always inquire into these four areas without having any basis whatever for believing that there is any infirmity in the witness's testimony. For example, one could ask a witness