United States Law/Evidence

Wikibooks has a book on the topic of Federal Rules of Evidence.

The Federal Rules of Evidence for United States Courts (FRE) replaced a body of common-law rules of evidence. The FRE are for use in United States Federal Courts.

Students of Evidence law should note, however, that Evidence Codes in State law in the United States largely mirror the FRE, with additions, editions, and exceptions to the rules comprised and compiled in the FRE. Evidence law students should refer to a compilation of the Rules as promulgated by the Supreme Court of the United States. Headings and brief descriptions of the rules will be listed below.

Caselaw interpreting and applying the rules will be thereinafter cited, to assist Evidence law students as to a comprehension of the application of the FRE to and in trial law, both oral and briefed, both civil and criminal.

The FRE currently have Eleven Articles:

Federal Rules of Evidence for United States Courts

Article I: GENERAL PROVISIONS

Rules 101-106

Rule 101. Scope.

Prescribes the federal courts in which the FRE are applicable. Also refer to Rule 1101 as to the extent thereof and exceptions thereto.

United States v. Monsanto, 924 F.2d 1186 (2d Cir. 1991). Also as to Fed.R.Evid. 1101.

Rule 102. Purpose and Construction.

Prescribes the general purposes of the FRE.

United States v. Opager, 589 F.2d 799 (5th Cir. 1979). As to Fed.R.Evid. 608.

Rule 103(a). Effect of erroneous ruling.

Harmless error occurs when a substantial right of a party is not affected by admission or exclusion of evidence.

Rule 103(a)(1). Objection.

Adverse party to admission of evidence requires timely objection or motion to strike to preserve objection. May require statement of specific ground for objection.

People v. Dunham, 559 N.W.2d 360, 220 Mich. App. 268 (1997). As to Fed.R.Evid 103(a)(1), 103(d), and 404(b).

Rule 103(a)(2). Offer of proof.

Adverse party to exclusion of evidence requires the making of the substance of the evidence known to the court. No requirement for objection or offer of proof to preserve claim on appeal.

Fox v. Dannenberg, 906 F.2d 1253 (8th Cir. 1990).

Rule 103(b). Record of offer and ruling.

The court may additionally characterize the evidence. The court may direct the making of an offer in question-and-answer form.

Rule 103(c). Hearing of Jury.

By no means is the jury to be made aware of inadmissible evidence. Statements or offers of proof are to be made outside the awareness of the jury.

United States v. Sutherland, 656 F.2d 1181 (5th Cir. 1981).

Rule 103(d). Plain error.

"Taking notice of plain errors" may be made even when not brought to the attention of the court by exception. Ex gratia, a prima facie showing of prima facie proof of plain error may be made on appeal, notwithstanding a party's failure to object in the trial court or in the court below the appellate court.

Rojas v. Richardson, 703 F.2d 186 (5th Cir. 1983). Also as to Fed.R.Evid. 403.

Rule 104(a). Questions of Admissibility Generally.

Only rules of privilege and not other rules of evidence are to be considered when the court considers preliminary questions such as witnesses, privileges, or admissibility of evidence (usually through a motion in limine, which, if granted, becomes an order in limine that evidence be admitted or excluded preliminary to trial).

United States v. Campbell, 73 F.3d 44 (5th Cir. 1996).

Green v. State, 840 S.W.2d 394 (Tex.Cr.App. 1992). Also as to Fed.R.Evid. 804.

Rule 104(b). Relevancy conditioned on fact.

Also known as "conditional admissibility", or "connect[ing] up", if a prima facie showing is not later made as to a "fulfillment of the condition", the conditionally-admitted evidence will thereby and thereafter be excluded at trial.

United States v. Platero, 72 F.3d 806 (10th Cir. 1995). Also as to Rules 104(a), 412(a) and 412(c).

Ricketts v. City of Hartford, 74 F.3d 1397 (2d Cir. 1996) Also as to Rules 104(a) and 901.

Rule 105. Limited Admissibility.

Provides that the court instruct the jury "[w]hen evidence is admissible as to one party for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose."

Government of the [United States] Virgin Islands v. Mujahid, 990 F.2d 111 (3d Cir. 1993).

Rule 106. Remainder of Related Writings of Recorded Statements.

Sets forth that adverse party is to have additional, usually penumbral, evidence in the form of a "writing or recorded statement" admitted when such evidence ought to be admitted "in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it."

United States v. Sutton, 801 F.2d 1346 (D.C. Cir. 1986).

Article II: JUDICIAL NOTICE

Rules 201(a)-201(g)

Rule 201(b). Kinds of facts.

No reasonable dispute can be had against judicially-noticed facts according to this rule. These are generally limited to "(1) generally known [facts] within the territorial jurisdiction...or (2) capable of...determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned."

Barber v. Ponte, 772 F.2d 982 (1st Cir. 1985).

Griswold v. Commonwealth [of Virginia], 452 S.E.2d 287, 19 Va.App. 477 (1985).

Rule 201(c). When discretionary.

A court may take judicial notice sua sponte, or upon motion made by either party.

Barber v. Ponte, 772 F.2d 982 (1st. Cir. 1985).

Rule 201(d). When mandatory.

Upon request, and when the requisite and qualifying information is provided to the court, "[a] court shall take judicial notice..."

Article III: PRESUMPTIONS IN CIVIL ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS

Rules 301-302

Rule 301. Presumptions in General in Civil Actions and Proceedings.

When a presumption arises, the "party against whom it is directed [has] the burden of going forward with the evidence" to prove or rebut it, however this burden does not shift to the imposing party to the extent of "nonpersuasion, which remains throughout the trial upon the party on whom it was originally cast."

United States v. Ahrens, 530 F.2d 781 (8th Cir. 1976).

In re: The Yoder Company, 758 F.2d 1114 (6th Cir. 1985).

Rule 302. Applicability of State Law in Civil Actions and Proceedings.

Where State law provides "the rule of decision", such State law prevails in determining the effect of a presumption with respect to a "fact which is an element of a claim or defense."

Monger v. Cessna Aircraft Company, 812 F.2d 402 (8th Cir. 1987).