Federal Rules Of Evidence

Front 1

Rule 610

Back 1

Evidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature the witness' credibility is impaired or enhanced.

Front 2

Evidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature the witness' credibility is impaired or enhanced.

Back 2

Rule 610

Front 3

Rule 403

Back 3

Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Front 4

Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Back 4

Rule 403

Front 5

Rule 804 (b)(1)

Back 5

(b) Hearsay exceptions.

The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness:

(1) Former testimony. Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.

Front 6

(b) Hearsay exceptions.

The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness:

(1) Former testimony. Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.

Back 6

Rule 804 (b)(1)

Front 7

Rule 801 (c)

Back 7

"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.

Front 8

"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.

Back 8

Rule 801 (c)

Front 9

Rule 803 (22)

Back 9

Judgment of previous conviction. Evidence of a final judgment, entered after a trial or upon a plea of guilty (but not upon a plea of nolo contendere), adjudging a person guilty of a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year, to prove any fact essential to sustain the judgment, but not including, when offered by the Government in a criminal prosecution for purposes other than impeachment, judgments against persons other than the accused. The pendency of an appeal may be shown but does not affect admissibility.

Front 10

Judgment of previous conviction. Evidence of a final judgment, entered after a trial or upon a plea of guilty (but not upon a plea of nolo contendere), adjudging a person guilty of a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year, to prove any fact essential to sustain the judgment, but not including, when offered by the Government in a criminal prosecution for purposes other than impeachment, judgments against persons other than the accused. The pendency of an appeal may be shown but does not affect admissibility.

Back 10

Rule 803 (22)

Front 11

Rule 403

Back 11

Rule 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Front 12

Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Back 12

Rule 403

Front 13

Rule 803 (5)

Back 13

Recorded recollection. A memorandum or record concerning a matter about which a witness once had knowledge but now has insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully and accurately, shown to have been made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness' memory and to reflect that knowledge correctly. If admitted, the memorandum or record may be read into evidence but may not itself be received as an exhibit unless offered by an adverse party.

Front 14

Recorded recollection. A memorandum or record concerning a matter about which a witness once had knowledge but now has insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully and accurately, shown to have been made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness' memory and to reflect that knowledge correctly. If admitted, the memorandum or record may be read into evidence but may not itself be received as an exhibit unless offered by an adverse party.

Back 14

Rule 803 (5)

Front 15

When may a witness invoke her privilege against self-incrimination?

Back 15

In any proceeding, civil or criminal, in which testimony that could incriminate the person is sought.

Front 16

Marital/spousal privileges

Back 16

Spousal testimony privilege- can be used to prevent any party in a criminal case from calling the defendant's spouse to testify against the defendant about any topic. In federal court as a matter of common law, this privilege attaches to the witness spouse; that is, the defendant's spouse can refuse to testify against the defendant, but the defendant may not prevent his or her spouse from testifying against the defendant.

This privilege does not survive the marriage; that is, after divorce, there is no right to refuse to testify against a defendant ex-spouse. This privilege may be restricted to testimony about events that occurred during the marriage, although in some jurisdictions it may apply to testimony about events occurring prior to the marriage.

The marital confidences privilege, also called the "marital communications privilege," is a form of privileged communication protecting the contents of confidential communications between a married couple. This privilege applies in civil and criminal cases. When applied, a court may not compel one spouse to testify against the other concerning confidential communications made during marriage.

The privilege generally applies only where both of the following fact situations are present: (1) a third party was not present during the communication (the presence of a third party would destroy the confidential nature of the communication), and (2) both parties intended that the communication be confidential.

The privilege is usually restricted to confidential communications made during marriage and does not include communications made before the marriage or after divorce. The privilege does, however, generally survive the divorce; that is, a person can be prevented from testifying about confidential communications with an ex-spouse made during the marriage.

Either spouse can invoke this privilege, either refusing to testify against their spouse or preventing their spouse from testifying. Finally, courts may require that the communication relate specifically to the marriage.