Federal Rules Of Evidence

Front 1

FRE 606(b)- Verdict Validity

Back 1

During an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment:

(1) Prohibited Testimony or Other Evidence. During an inquiry into the validityof a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify about any statement made orincident that occurred during the jury’s deliberations; the effect of anythingon that juror’s or another juror’s vote; or any juror’s mental processesconcerning the verdict or indictment. The court may not receive a juror’saffidavit or evidence of a juror’s statement on these matters.

(2)Exceptions. A juror maytestify about whether:

(A) extraneous prejudicial informationwas improperly brought to the jury’s attention;

(B) an outside influence was improperlybrought to bear on any juror; or

(C) a mistake was made in entering theverdict on the verdict form

Front 2

FRe 402- Relevance

Back 2

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

1. The US Constitution

2. A fed. statute

3. Federal Rules of Evidence

4. Other rules prescribed by SCOTUS

Irrelevant evidence is no admissible

Front 3

FRE 401- Relevance

Back 3

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 4

FRE 104)b)- Relevance

Back 4

Relevance that Depends on a Fact

When the relevance of evidence depends upon 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.

Front 5

FRE 403- Excluding Relevant Evidence

Back 5

The Court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following:

1) Unfair Prejudice

2) Confusing the Issues

3) Misleading the Jury
4) Undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

Front 6

"Unfair Prejudice"

Back 6

"means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one"

Front 7

"Flight"

Back 7

Relevance of flight is based on 4 inferences:

1) Defendant's behavior is flight

2) Flight is consciousness of guilt

3) Consciousness of guilt is for THIS crime

4) Consciousness of Guilt for this crime means actual guilt

Front 8

FRE 407- Subsequent Remedial Measures

Back 8

When measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove:

1) negligence

2) culpable conduct (guilt)

3) a defect in a product or its design, or

4) a need for a warning or instruction

But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as impeachment or - if disputed- proving ownership, control, etc.

Front 9

FRE 408- Compromise Offers and Negotiations

Back 9

a) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of the following is NOT admissible- on behalf of ANY party- either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction:

1) furnishing promising or offering- or accepting, promising to accept, or offering to accept- a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim; and

2) conduct or statement made during compromise negotiations about the claim- except when offered in a criminal case and when the negotiations related to a claim by a public office in the exercise of its regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority.

b) Exceptions. THE COURT MAY ADMIT THIS EVIDENCE FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE, such as proving a witness's bias or prejudice, negating a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.

Front 10

FRE 409- Offers to Pay Medical Expenses

Back 10

expenses paid are not admissible to show fault, but the rules do not mention the issues of statements regarding payment of these expenses.

Front 11

FRE 411- Liability Insurance:

Back 11

Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is no admissible to prove whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness's bias or prejudice or proving agency, ownership, or control.

Front 12

FRE 410- Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements

Back 12

a) Prohibited Uses. In a civil or criminal case, evidence of the following is NOT admissible against the defendant who made the plea or participated in the 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 please under Federal Rule of Criminal Prcedure 11 or a comparabel state procedure; or

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

b) Exceptions. The court may admit a statement described in 410(a)(3) or (4):

1) in any proceeding in which another statement made during the same plea or plea discussions has been introduced, if in fairness the statements ought to be considered together or

2) in a criminal proceeding for perjury or false statement if the defendant made the statement under oath, on the record, or with counsel present.

Front 13

FRE 404(a)- Character Evidence

Back 13

1) Prohibited Uses. 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.

2) Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case. The following exceptions apply in a criminal 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 limitations of 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; and

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 first aggressor

3) Exceptions for a Witness. Evidence of a witness's character may be admitted under Rules 607, 608, 609

Front 14

FRE 404(b)- Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts

Back 14

1) Prohibited Uses. 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.

2) Permitted Uses; Notice in a Criminal Case. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of a 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 intendeds to offer at trial; and
B) do so before trial- or during trial if the court, for good cause, excuses lack of pretrial notice.1

Front 15

Res Gestae

Back 15

"Things done"
"Other acts" that are "inextricably intertwined" with acts at issue in the case may potentially be admitted.

Front 16

FRE 405(a)- Character Evidence Methods

Back 16

Permits the character witness to testify in the form of opinion or reputation only

Front 17

FRE 405(b)- Character Evidence Methods

Back 17

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

Front 18

FRE 406- Habit, Routine Practice

Back 18

Evidence of a person'a habit or an organizations 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 19

Habit

Back 19

repetitive patter or conduct that is, therefore, predictable and predictive conduct.

Front 20

FRE 413- Similar Crimes in Sexual Assault Cases

Back 20

In a criminal case in which a defendant is accused of a sexual assault, the court may admit evidence that the defendant committed any other sexual assault.

Front 21

FRE 414- Similar Crimes in Sexual Molestation Cases

Back 21

In a criminal case in which a defendant is accused of child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the defendant committed any other child molestation.

Front 22

FRE 415- Similar Acts in Civil Cases Involving Sexual Assault or Child Molestation

Back 22

In a civil case involving a claim for relief based on a party's alleged sexual assault or child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the party committed any other sexual assault or child molestation.

Front 23

FRE 607- Impeachment

Back 23

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

Front 24

FRE 608- Impeachment

Back 24

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

b) Specific Instances of Conduct. Except for a criminal conviction under Rule 609, extrinsic evidence is NOT admissible to prove 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

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 25

FRE 609(a)- Impeachment- Evidence of a Criminal Conviction

Back 25

a) In General. The following rules apply to attacking 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

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 require proving- or the witness's admitting- a dishonest act or false statement.

Front 26

FRE 609(b), (c), (d), & (e)- Impeachment- Evidence of a Criminal Conviction- LIMITATIONS

Back 26

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

1)its probative value, supported by specific facts and circumstances, substantially outweighs its prejudicial effects; 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.

c) Effect of a Pardon Annulment, or Certificate of Rehabilitation. Evidence of a conviction is NOT admissible if:

1) the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, 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

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

d) Juvenile Adjudications. Evidence of a juvenile adjudication is admissible under this rule ONLY IF:

1) it is offered in a criminal case;

2) the adjudication was 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.

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

Front 27

FRE 412- Rape Shield Rule

Back 27

a) Prohibited Uses. The following evidence is NOT admissible in a civil or criminal proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct:

1)evidence offered to prove that a victim engaged in other sexual behavior; or

2) evidence offered to prove a victim's sexual predisposition.

b) Exceptions.

1) Criminal Cases. The court may admit the following evidence in a criminal case:

A) evidence of specific instances of a victim's sexual behavior, if offered to prove that someone other than the defendant was teh source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence;

B) evidence of specific instance of a victim's sexual behavior with respect to the person accused of the sexual misconduct, IF OFFERED BY THE DEFENDANT TO PROVE CONSENT or if offered by the prosecutor; and

C) evidence whose exclusion would violate the defendant's constitutional rights.

2) Civil Cases. In a civil case, the court may admit evidence offered to prove a victim's sexual behavior or sexual predisposition if its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of harm to any victim and of unfair prejudice to any party. The court may admit evidence of a victim's reputation only if the victim has placed it in controversy.

c) Procedure to Determine Admissibility

1) Motion. If a party intends to offer evidence under Rule 412(b), the party must:

A) file a motion that specifically describes the evidence and states the purpose for which it is to be offered;
B) do so at least 14 days before trial unless the court, for good cause, sets a different time;
C) serve the motion on all parties; and
D) notify the victim or, when appropriate, the victim's guardian or representative.

2) Hearing. Before admitting the evidence under this rule, the court must conduct an in camera hearing and give the victim and parties a right to attend and be heard. Unless the court orders otherwise, the motion, related materials, and the record of the hearing must be and remain sealed.

d) Definition of "Victim." In this rule, "victim" includes an alleged victim.

Front 28

FRE 610- Religious Beliefs or Opinions

Back 28

Evidence of a witness's religious beliefs or opinions is not admissible to attack or support a witness's credibility.

Front 29

FRE 801(c)- Definition of Hearsay

Back 29

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.

Front 30

FRE 802- Rule Against Hearsay

Back 30

Hearsay is NOT admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise:

1) a federal statute;

2) these rules; or

3) other rules prescribed by SCOTUS

Front 31

FRE 801(d)- Hearsay- Opposing Party's Statement

Back 31

2)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 co-conspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

That statement must be considered but does not by itself establish the declarant's authority under (C); the existence or scope of the relationship (D); or the existence of the conspiracy or participation in it under (E).

Front 32

FRE 801(d)(2)(B)- Adoptive admission/Adoption by silence

Back 32

The statement is offered against an opposing party and... (B) is on e the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true."

4 necessary inferences:

1) Statement heard and understood by the party

2) Party was at liberty to respond

3) Circumstances called for a response by the party

4) Party failed to respond or rebut the statement

Front 33

FRE 801(d)(2)(E)- Hearsay- Co-Conspirator's Statements- "Bourjaily"

Back 33

3 preconditions to the co-conspirator exception:

1) that the conspiracy existed at the time the out-of-court statement was made;

2) that the conspiracy included both the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered, and

3) that the declarant spoke during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Front 34

FRE 613- Impeachment by Past Inconsistent Statements

Back 34

a) Showing or Disclosing the Statement During Examination. When examining a witness about the witness's prior statement, a party need not show it or disclose its contents to the witness. But the party must, on request, show it or disclose its contents to an adverse party's attorney.

b) Extrinsic Evidence of a Prior Inconsistent Statement. Extrinsic evidence of witness's prior inconsistent statement is admissible only if witness is given opportunity to explain or deny the statement and an adverse party is given an opportunity to examine the witness about it, or if justice so requires. This subdivision (b) does not apply to an opposing party's statement under Rule 801(d)(2).

Front 35

FRE 801(d)(1)(A)- Inconsistent Statements Offered Substantively

Back 35

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;

Front 36

FRE 801(d)(1)(B)- Prior Consistent Statements

Back 36

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:

;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

Front 37

FRE 801(d)(1)(C)- Prior Statements of Identification

Back 37

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:

C) identifies a person as someone the declarant perceived earlier

Front 38

FRE 804-Hearsay Exceptions: Declarant Unavailable

Back 38

a) Criteria for Being Unavailable. A declarant is considered to be unavailable as a witness if the declarant:

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

5) is absent from the trial or hearing an 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 DECLARANT FROM ATTENDING OR TESTIFYING

(b) The Exceptions. The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay if the declarant is unavailable as a witness:

1) Former Testimony. Testimony that: 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.

2) Statement Under the Belief of Imminent Death. In a prosecution for homicide or in a civil case, a statement that the declarant, while believing the declarant's death to be imminent, made about its cause or circumstances.

3) Statement Against Interest. A Statement that: 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.

4) Statement of Personal or Family History. A statement about: A) the declarant's own birth, adoption, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, divorce, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, or similar facts of personal or family history, even though the declarant had no way of acquiring personal knowledge about that fact; or B) another person concerning any of these facts, as well as death, if the declarant was related to the person by blood, adoption, or marriage or was so intimately associated with the person's family that the declarant's information is likely to be accurate.

6) Statement Offered Against a Party that Wrongfully Caused the Declarant's Unavailability. A statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused- or acquiesced in wrongfully causing- the declarant's unavailability as a witness, and did so intending that result.

Front 39

FRE 803(1)- Hearsay Exception- Present Sense Impression

Back 39

The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:

Present Sense Impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it

Front 40

FRE 803(2) Hearsay Exception- Excited Utterance

Back 40

The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:

Excited Utterance. A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.

Front 41

FRE 803(3)- Hearsay Exception-"Then-Existing State of Mind"

Back 41

The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:

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.

Front 42

FRE 803(4)- Hearsay Exception- Medical Diagnosis or Treatment

Back 42

The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:

Statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. A statement that: A) is made for- and is reasonably pertinent to - medical diagnosis or treatment; and B) their inception; or their general cause.

Front 43

FRE 803(5)- Hearsay Exception- Recorded Recollections

Back 43

The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:

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 44

FRE 612- Writing Used to Refresh a Witness

Back 44

a) Scope. This rule gives an adverse party certain options when a witness uses a writing to refresh memory:

1) while testifying; or

2) before testifying, if the court decides that justice requires the party to have those options.

b) Adverse Party's Options; Deleting Unrelated Mater. Unless 18 U.S.C. § 3500 provides otherwise in a criminal case, an adverse party is entitled to have the writing produced at the hearing, to inspect it, to cross-examine the witness about it, and to introduce in evidence any portion that relates to the witness's testimony. If the producing party claims that the writing includes unrelated matter, the court must examine the writing in camera, delete any unrelated portion, and order that the rest be delivered to the adverse party. Any portion deleted over objection must be preserved for the record.

c) Failure to Produce or Deliver the Writing. If a writing is not produced or is not delivered as ordered, the court may issue any appropriate order. But if the prosecution does not comply in a criminal case, the court must strike the witness's testimony or- if justice so requires- declare a mistrial.

Front 45

FRE 803(6)- Hearsay Exception- Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity

Back 45

The following are not excluded by therule against hearsay, regardlessof whether the declarant is available as a witness:

Records of 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 a 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) the opponent does not show that the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

Front 46

FRE 803(7)- Hearsay Exceptions- Absence of a Record of a Regularly Conducted Activity

Back 46

The following are not excluded by therule against hearsay, regardlessof whether the declarant is available as a witness:

Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. Evidence that a matter is not included in a record described in paragraph (b) 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) the opponent does not show that the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

Front 47

FRE 803(8)- Hearsay Exceptions- Public Records

Back 47

The following are not excluded by therule against hearsay, regardlessof whether the declarant is available as a witness:

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 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)the opponent does not show that the source of information or other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness

Front 48

FRE 803(10)- Hearsay Exceptions- Absence of a Public Record

Back 48

Testimony- or a certification under Rule 902- that a diligent search failed to disclose a public record or statement if:
A) the testimony or certification is admitted to prove that i) the record or statement does not exist; or ii) a matter did not occur or exist, if a public office regularly kept record or statement for a matter of that kind; and
B) in a criminal case, a prosecutor who intends to offer a certification provides written notice of that intent at least 14 days before trial, and the defendant does not object in writing within 7 days of receiving the notice- unless the court sets a different times for the notice or the objection.

Front 49

FRE 807- Residual Exception

Back 49

a) In General. Under the following circumstances, a hearsay statement is NOT excluded by the rule against hearsay even if the statement is not specifically covered by a hearsay exception in Rule 803 or 804:

1)the statement has equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness;

2) it is offered as evidence of a material fact;

3) it is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts; and

4) admitting it will best serve the purposes of these rules and the interests of justice.

b) Notice. The statement is admissible only if, before the trial or hearing, the proponent gives an adverse party reasonable notice of the intent to offer the statement and its particulars, including the declarant's name and address, so that the party has a fair opportunity to meet it.

Front 50

FRE 701- Lay Opinion: Non-Experts

Back 50

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 51

FRE 702-Expert Witness Testimony

Back 51

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 if:

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 52

FRE 703- Basis of Expert Testimony

Back 52

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 the prejudicial effect.

Front 53

Frye Test- Expert Testimony Reliability

Back 53

For a scientific method to be admissible, the test must be "sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field to which it belongs."

No longer the standard!

Front 54

Daubert Test- Expert Testimony Reliability

Back 54

1) Relevant

AND

2) Reliability- is this good science?
a) Can and has it been tested; subject to falsification?

b) peer review and publication?
c) known or potential rate of error?
d) standards for controlling the operation of technique?
e) "general acceptance": use Frye standard