Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Rules, established in 1938, replaced the earlier procedures under the Federal Equity Rules and the Conformity Act (28 USC 724 (1934)) merging the procedure for cases, in law and equity. The Conformity Act required that procedures in suits at law conform to state practice, usually the Field Code or a pleading system based on common law.
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]
The early stages of the lawsuit may involve initial disclosures of evidence by each party and discovery, which is the structured exchange of evidence and statements between the parties. Discovery is meant to eliminate surprises, clarify what the lawsuit is about, and also to make the parties decide if they should settle or drop frivolous claims ...
Misstates evidence / misquotes witness / improper characterization of evidence: this objection is often overruled, but can be used to signal a problem to witness, judge and jury. [7] Narrative: the question asks the witness to relate a story rather than state specific facts.
In a court filing, the U.S. Attorney's office in Manhattan said nine pieces of evidence jurors used while deliberating displayed material that should have been redacted.
Former Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) has asked a federal judge to throw out his corruption conviction and grant a new trial after it was revealed that jurors were accidentally shown improper evidence ...
An abuse of process is the unjustified or unreasonable use of legal proceedings or process to further a cause of action by an applicant or plaintiff in an action. It is a claim made by the respondent or defendant that the other party is misusing or perverting regularly issued court process (civil or criminal) not justified by the underlying legal action.
A subsequent remedial measure is an improvement, repair, or safety measure made after an injury has occurred. FRE 407 [dead link ] prohibits the admission of evidence of subsequent remedial measures to show defendant's (1) negligence; (2) culpable conduct; (3) a defect in defendant's product; (4) defect in the design of defendant's product; or (5) the need for a warning or instruction.