Federal Rules Of Evidence

Front 1

Rule 106: Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded Statements

Back 1

If a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time, of any other part- or any other writing or recorded statement- that in fairness ought to be considered at the time.

Front 2

Rule 401: Test for Relevant Evidence

Back 2

Evidence is relevant if:

(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and

(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

Front 3

Rule 402: General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence

Back 3

Relevant evidence is admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise:

*the United States Constitution;

*a federal statute

*these rules; or

*other rules prescribed by the supreme court

Irrelevant evidence is not admissible

Front 4

Rule 403: Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons

Back 4

The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

Front 5

Rule 404(a)(1): Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts (Prohibited Uses)

Back 5

Evidence of a person's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.

Front 6

Rule 404(a)(2)(A): Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts (Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case).

Back 6

The following exceptions apply in a criminal case:

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;

Front 7

Rule 404(a)(2)(B): character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts (Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case)

Back 7

The following exceptions apply in a criminal case:

subject to the limitations in Rule 412, a defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victim's pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may:

(i) offer evidence to rebut it; and

(ii) offer evidence of the defendant's same trait.

Front 8

Rule 404(a)(2)(C): character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts (Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case)

Back 8

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 first aggressor.

Front 9

Rule 404(a)(3): Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts (Exceptions for a Witness)

Back 9

Evidence of a witness's character may be admitted under Rules 607, 608, and 609.

Front 10

Rule 404 (b)(1): Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts (Prohibited Uses)

Back 10

Evidence of a crime, wrong or other act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

Front 11

Rule 404(b)(2): Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts (Permitted Uses; Notice in a Criminal Case)

Back 11

The evidence may be admissible for another purpose such as proving motive, opportunity, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. On request by a defendant in a criminal case, the prosecutor must:

(A) provide reasonable notice of the general nature of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial; and

(B) do so before trial- or during trial if the court, for good cause, excuses lack of pretrial notice.

Front 12

Rule 405(a): Methods of Proving Character (By Reputation or Opinion)

Back 12

When evidence of a person's character or character trait is admissible, it may be proved by testimony about the person's reputation or testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-Examination of the character witness, the court may allow an inquiry into relevant specific instances of the person's conduct.

Front 13

Rule 405(b): Methods of Proving Character (By specific instances of conduct)

Back 13

When a person's character or character trait is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, the character trait may also be proved by relevant specific instances of the person's conduct.

Front 14

Rule 406: Habit; Routine Practice

Back 14

Evidence of a person's habit or an organization's routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice. The court may admit this evidence regardless of whether it is corroborated or whether there was an eyewitness.

Front 15

Rule 410(a): Pleas, Plea Discussion, and Related Statements (Prohibited uses

Back 15

In a civil or criminal case, evidence of the following is not admissible against the defendant who made the plea or participated in plea discussions:

(1) a guilty plea that was later withdrawn;

(2) a nolo contendere plea;

(3)a statement made during a proceeding on either of those pleas under Federal Rules Rule 11 or a comparable state procedure; or

(4) a statement made during plea discussion with an attorney for the proceeding authority if the discussion did not result in a guilty plea or they resulted in a later withdrawn guilty plea.

Front 16

Rule 601: General Rule of Compentency

Back 16

Every Person is competent to be a witness unless these rules provide otherwise. But in a civil case, state law governs the witness's competency regarding a claim or defense for which state law supplies the rule of decision.

Front 17

Rule 602: Need for Personal Knowledge

Back 17

A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may consist of the witness's own testimony. The rule does not apply to a witness's expert testimony under Rule 703.

Front 18

Rule 603: Oath or Affirmation to Testify Truthfully

Back 18

Before testifying, a witness must give an oath or affirmation to testify truthfully. It must be in a form designed to impress that duty on the witness's conscience.

Front 19

Rule 607: Who May Impeach a Witness

Back 19

Any party, including the party that called the witness, may attack the witness's credibility.

Front 20

Rule 608(b)(1): A Witness's Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness (Specific instances of Conduct)

Back 20

Except for a criminal conviction under Rle 609, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to rove specific instances of a witness's conduct in order to attack or support the witness's character for truthfulness. But the court may, on cross-examination, allow them to be inquired into if they are probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of:

(1) The witness; or

Front 21

Rule 608(b)(2): A Witness's Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness (Specific instances of Conduct)

Back 21

Except for a criminal conviction under Rle 609, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to rove specific instances of a witness's conduct in order to attack or support the witness's character for truthfulness. But the court may, on cross-examination, allow them to be inquired into if they are probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of:

(2) another witness whose character the witness being cross examined has testified about. By testifying on another matter, a witness does not waive any privilege against self-incrimination for testimony that relates only to the witness's character for truthfulness.

Front 22

Rule 608(a): A Witness's Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness (Reputation or Opinion Evidence)

Back 22

A witness's credibility may be attacked or supported by testimony about the witness's reputation for having a character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or by testimony in the form of an opinion about that character. But evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the witness's character for truthfulness has been attacked.

Front 23

Rule 609(a)(1): Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction (In General)

Back 23

The following rules apply to attracting a witness's character for truthfulness by evidence of a criminal conviction:

(1) for a crime that, in the convicting jurisdiction was punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than one year, the evidence:

(A) must be admitted, subject to Rule 403, in a civil case or in a criminal case in which the witness is not a defendant; and

(B) must be admitted in a criminal case in which the witness is a defendant, if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to that defendant; and

Front 24

Rule 609(a)(2): Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction (In General)

Back 24

The following rules apply to attacking a witness's character for truthfulness by evidence of a criminal:

(2) for any crime regardless of the punishment, the evidence must be admitted if the court can readily determine that establishing the elements of the crime required proving- or the witness's admitting- a dishonest act or false statement.

Front 25

Rule 609(b): Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction (Limit on Using the Evidence After 10 Years)

Back 25

This subdivision (b) applies if more than 10 years have passed since the witness's conviction or release from confinement for it, whichever is late. Evidence of the conviction is admissible only if:

(1) its probative value, supported by specific facts and circumstances, substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect and

(2) the proponent gives an adverse party reasonable written notice of the intent to use it so that the party has a fair opportunity to contest its use.

Front 26

Rule 609(c)(1): Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction (Effect of a Pardon, Annulment, or Certificate of Rehabilitation)

Back 26

Evidence of a conviction is not admissible if:

(1) the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, or certificate of rehabilitation or other equivalent procedure based on a finding that the person has been rehabilitated, and the person has not been convicted of a later crime punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than one year; or

Front 27

Rule 609(c)(2): Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction (Effect of a Parson, Annulment, or Certificate of Rehabilitation)

Back 27

Evidence of a conviction is not admissible if:

(2) the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding of innocence.

Front 28

Rule 609(d): Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction (Juvenile Adjudications)

Back 28

Evidence of juvenile adjudication is admissible under this rule only if:

(1) it is offered in a criminal case;

(2) the adjudication was of a witness other than the defendant;

(3) an adult's conviction for that offense would be admissible to attack the adult's credibility; and

(4) admitting the evidence is necessary to fairly determine guilt or innocence.

Front 29

Rule 609(e): Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction (Pendency of an Appeal)

Back 29

A conviction that satisfies this rule is admissible even if an appeal is pending. Evidence of the pendency is also admissible.

Front 30

Rule 611(a): Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence (Control by the Court; Purposes)

Back 30

The court should exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of examining witness and presenting evidence so as to:

(1) make those procedures effective for determining the truth

(2) avoid wasting time; and

(3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.

Front 31

Rule 611(b): Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence (Scope of Cross-Examination)

Back 31

Cross Examination should not go beyond the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the witness's credibility. The court may allow inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination.

Front 32

Rule 611(c): Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence (Leading Questions)

Back 32

Leading questions should not go beyond direct examination except as necessary to develop the witness's testimony. Ordinarily, the court should allow leading questions:

(1) on cross-examination; and

(2) when a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party or witness identified with an adverse party.

Front 33

Rule 701: Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses

Back 33

If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is:

(a) rationally based on the witness's perception;

(b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness's testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and

(c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702

Front 34

Rule 702: Testimony by Expert Witness

Back 34

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if0

(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Front 35

Rule 703: Bases of an Expert's Opinion Testimony

Back 35

An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed. If experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject, they need not be admissible for the opinion to be admitted. But if the facts or data would otherwise be inadmissible, the proponent of the opinion may disclose them to the jury only if their probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.

Front 36

Rule 704(a): Opinion on an Ultimate Issue (In General- Not Automatically Objectionable)

Back 36

An opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue.

Front 37

Rule 704(b): Opinion on an Ultimate Issue (Exception)

Back 37

In a criminal case, an expert witness must not state an opinion about whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense. Those matters are for the trier of fact alone.

Front 38

Rule 705: Disclosing the Facts or Data Underlying an Expert's Opinion

Back 38

Unless the court orders otherwise, an expert may state an opinion — and give the reasons for it — without first testifying to the underlying facts or data. But the expert may be required to disclose those facts or data on cross-examination.

Front 39

Rule 801(a) and (b): Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

Back 39

(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.

Front 40

Rule 801(c): Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

Back 40

“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.

Front 41

Rule 801(d)(1)(A): Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay (A Declarant-Witness's Prior Statement)

Back 41

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;

Front 42

Rule 801(d)(1)(B): Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay (A Declarant-Witness's Prior Statement)

Back 42

(B) is consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered:

(i) 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

(ii) to rehabilitate the declarant's credibility as a witness when attacked on another ground; or

Front 43

Rule 801(d)(1)(C): Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay (A Declarant-Witness's Prior Statement)

Back 43

(C) identifies a person as someone the declarant perceived earlier.

Front 44

Rule 801(d)(2): Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay (An Opposing Party's Statement)

Back 44

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).

Front 45

Rule 802: The Rule Against Hearsay

Back 45

Hearsay is not admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise:a federal statute;these rules; orother rules prescribed by the Supreme Court.

Front 46

Rule 803(1): Hearsay Exceptions

Back 46

Present Sense Impression

Front 47

Rule 803(2): Hearsay Exceptions

Back 47

Excited Utterance

Front 48

Rule 803(3): Hearsay Exceptions

Back 48

State of Mind

Front 49

Rule 803(4): Hearsay Exceptions

Back 49

Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment

Front 50

Rule 803(5): Hearsay Exceptions

Back 50

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.

Front 51

Rule 803(6): Hearsay Exceptions

Back 51

Business Records

(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 opponent does not show that the source of information nor or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

Front 52

Rule 804(a)(1)-(4): Hearsay Exceptions (Criteria for Being Unavailable)

Back 52

(1) is exempted from testifying about the subject matter of the declarant’s statement because the court rules that a privilege applies;

(2) refuses to testify about the subject matter despite a court order to do so;

(3) testifies to not remembering the subject matter;

(4) cannot be present or testify at the trial or hearing because of death or a then-existing infirmity, physical illness, or mental illness; or

Front 53

Rule 804(a)(5): Hearsay Exceptions (Criteria for Being Unavailable)

Back 53

(5) is absent from the trial or hearing and the statement’s proponent has not been able, by process or other reasonable means, to procure:

(A) the declarant’s attendance, in the case of a hearsay exception under Rule 804(b)(1) or (6); or

(B) the declarant’s attendance or testimony, in the case of a hearsay exception under Rule 804(b)(2), (3), or (4).But this subdivision (a) does not apply if the statement’s proponent procured or wrongfully caused the declarant’s unavailability as a witness in order to prevent the declarant from attending or testifying.

Front 54

Rule 804(b)(1): Hearsay Exceptions (The Exceptions)

Back 54

Former Testimony

(A) was given as a witness at a trial, hearing, or lawful deposition, whether given during the current proceeding or a different one; and

(B) is now offered against a party who had — or, in a civil case, whose predecessor in interest had — an opportunity and similar motive to develop it by direct, cross-, or redirect examination.

Front 55

Rule 804(b)(2): Hearsay Exceptions (The Exceptions)

Back 55

Statements under the belief of imminent death.

Front 56

Rule 804(b)(3): Hearsay Exceptions (The Exceptions)

Back 56

Statement Against Interest:

(A) a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would have made only if the person believed it to be true because, when made, it was so contrary to the declarant’s proprietary or pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the declarant’s claim against someone else or to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability; and

(B) is supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness, if it is offered in a criminal case as one that tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability.

Front 57

Rule 804(b)(6): Hearsay Exceptions (The Exceptions)

Back 57

Statement offered Against a Party that Wrongfully Caused the Declarant's Unavailability.

Front 58

Rule 805: Hearsay Within Hearsay

Back 58

Hearsay within hearsay is not excluded by the rule against hearsay if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the rule.

Front 59

Rule 806: Attacking and Supporting the Declarant's Credibility

Back 59

When a hearsay statement — or a statement described in Rule 801(d)(2)(C), (D), or (E) — has been admitted in evidence, the declarant’s credibility may be attacked, and then supported, by any evidence that would be admissible for those purposes if the declarant had testified as a witness. The court may admit evidence of the declarant’s inconsistent statement or conduct, regardless of when it occurred or whether the declarant had an opportunity to explain or deny it. If the party against whom the statement was admitted calls the declarant as a witness, the party may examine the declarant on the statement as if on cross-examination.

Front 60

Rule 1002: Requirement of the Original

Back 60

An original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its content unless these rules or a federal statute provides otherwise.

Front 61

Rule 1003: Admissibility of Duplicates

Back 61

A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a genuine question is raised about the original’s authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate.

Front 62

Rule 1006: Summaries to Prove Content

Back 62

The proponent may use a summary, chart, or calculation to prove the content of voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs that cannot be conveniently examined in court. The proponent must make the originals or duplicates available for examination or copying, or both, by other parties at a reasonable time and place. And the court may order the proponent to produce them in court.