Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
fre 801(d)(1)(b) United States , 513 U.S. 150 (1995), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that under Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 801(d)(1)(B), a prior consistent statement is not hearsay only if the statement was made before the motive to fabricate arose.
(F.R.E. 801(a)). [2] The Supreme Court has further clarified that a "statement" refers to "a single declaration or remark, rather than a report or narrative". [ 3 ] Thus, a trial court must separately analyze each individual statement, "sentence-by-sentence", [ 4 ] rather than analyzing the narrative as whole for hearsay content or exceptions.
A prior consistent statement is not a hearsay exception; the FRE specifically define it as non-hearsay. A prior consistent statement is admissible: to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated a statement, for instance, during her testimony at trial; the witness testifies at the present trial; and
"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." [1] Per Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(a), a statement made by a defendant is admissible as evidence only if it is inculpatory; exculpatory statements made to an investigator are hearsay and therefore may not be admitted as ...
AOL latest headlines, entertainment, sports, articles for business, health and world news.
The Party Admission rule is nearly universal in the U.S. Many states follow the Federal Rules of Evidence, but some do not. Those states do not draw a distinction between "exemptions" and "exceptions." However, the party admission is still admissible under all of the same circumstances as in rule 801(d). [8]
Another use of impeachment by contradiction can be explained negatively. An attorney cannot contradict an opponent's witness on a trivial ("collateral") fact like the color of the hat worn on the day she witnessed the accident, but on more important matters normally excluded by the rules of relevance, contradiction may be allowed.
First adopted in 1975, the Federal Rules of Evidence codify the evidence law that applies in United States federal courts. [1] In addition, many states in the United States have either adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence, with or without local variations, or have revised their own evidence rules or codes to at least partially follow the federal rules.