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]
The Hitchcock Rule (also known as the "Collateral Rule") is a common law rule forbidding the introduction of extrinsic evidence to contradict a witness on a collateral matter. [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] That is, impeachment of a witness as to a collateral fact can only be accomplished by intrinsic methods such as questioning.
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 ...
Noting that prior statements of a witness that "relate generally to the events and activities testified to" by him must be produced in the Jencks Act, the court said that since the statement in question related to the subject matter as to which the witness had testified, the statute left no room for the trial court, nor for the present court ...
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.
(a.) The Petitioner was not required to lay a preliminary foundation for his motion, showing inconsistency between the contents of the reports and the testimony of the government agents, because a sufficient foundation was established by their testimony that their reports were of the events and activities related in their testimony.
One of the main areas which needed clarification after the creation of Markman hearings was the use of evidence during claim construction. In analyzing patent language, the court can turn to difference sources of information for guidance. [7] These sources were eventually split into intrinsic evidence and extrinsic evidence. [7]