Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
However, under Federal Rule of Evidence 801 and the minority of U.S. jurisdictions that have adopted this rule, a prior inconsistent statement may be introduced as evidence of the truth of the statement itself if the prior statement was given in live testimony and under oath as part of a formal hearing, proceeding, trial, or deposition. [2]
Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that before admitting evidence of extrinsic acts under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, federal courts should assess the evidence's sufficiency under Federal Rule of Evidence 104(b). Under 104(b), "[w]hen the relevancy of ...
A party may impeach a witness for character by cross-examining the witness but not by introducing extrinsic evidence, about specific instances of prior misconduct, often called "prior bad acts," as long as the questions relate to the witness's own character for truthfulness (or untruthfulness) or to the character for untruthfulness of a ...
Prior to this case, prior inconsistent statements made by a witness other than an accused could merely be used to impeach the witness's credibility, not for substantive purposes. Here, the Court held that if the statements could be found to be both necessary and reliable then the statements could be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule.
Even though, according to the parol evidence rule, words and terms in a writing intended to be the final expression of the agreement of the parties may not be contradicted by extrinsic evidence of a prior or contemporaneous agreement, extrinsic evidence in the form of course of dealing nonetheless may be used to explain or supplement the writing.
The four corners doctrine is similar to the parol evidence rule, which prohibits a contracting party from introducing evidence separate from the contract that would modify the contract in contravention of its written terms. [2] However, the Four Corners Doctrine prohibits a party from introducing evidence to interpret an unambiguous term.
Under this rule extrinsic evidence of the surrounding circumstances and commercial objectives of a contract may only be referred to where the Court has established that a term of a contract is ambiguous. [9] However, Justice Mason did not define the kind of ambiguity required to meet the requirements of the 'true rule'. [3]
Conduct a hearing outside the presence of the jury to examine evidence extrinsic to the statement. [86] Examine the requested document in camera. [87] [88] The act requires in camera inspection to resolve any question as to whether or to what extent the document relates to the subject matter of the witness' testimony. [89]