The Federal Rules of Evidence - Part 2
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 03. 2010
- 1993 Federal Judicial Center gov.ntis.ava19481vnb2.2 1722-V/93 Federal Judicial Center - The program is a part of a video orientation series for district judges in the federal courts. Newly appointed district judges attend a week-long video orientation seminar at which they view programs on different aspects of their new duties, ranging from civil and criminal pretrial and trial procedures to the nuts and bolts of utilizing support staff. In this part of the series, Judge James H. Hancock of the Northern District of Alabama updates his classic 1982 program on the federal rules of evidence. He discusses everything from judicial notice to relevance, hearsay and authentication. The main point of his message; the rules of evidence are common sense rules embodying principles the judges already know or will easily understand once they review them. The update concentrates on rules 404b (other crimes - evidence), 609 (use of prior convictions on cross-examination), and 701-706 (use of expert witnesses).
this guy literally just helped me pass my midterm. thanks boo!
Gonna quote this guy in the Feb 2023 bar
This judge should be casted in a movie, speaks well, some theater while informing! Many FRE apply to state too.
Thank you very much Judge Hancock!
This material is presented in an incredibly clear, concise and useful manner. Though it is a little frightening to think there are federal judicial appointees that would not already been thoroughly familiar with the rules of evidence (at least on the broad, basic level its being presented here). Perhaps it is less of a problem now than it was in 1980 or whenever this was made.
Thanku!!! This is very helpful as a summary.
THIS GUY SAVED ME
Why didn't the Referee allow me to look at the paperwork sent to me from the Court, but I heard the Attorneys refer to the notes over the phone, nor would she allow my son (who was my client) to speak at all to establish the presence of his disability when they said I quit, when I didn't? I am also a Member of the American Bar Association Your Honor.
If it please The Court Your Honor,
What if the testimony was suborned or the person was erroneously charged for something due to prejudice based on supposition as opposed to fact?
great vid
What if the person who made the statement was impaired for some reason, Your Honor?
What is a Physician forces a Patient to put their hands under hot water? What if a nurse or nursing assistant keeps pricking a Patient's finger? What if another Patient punches the same Patient in the head at the hospital? What if another Patient asks said Patient (a female) to sit on her lap? What if other Patients stand outside of said Patient's room while saying "New Fish" while laughing? What if a person in her community at a local bank says, "Oh, it's going to be a crazy day" when the former Patient walks in the bank? What happens when the Patient is dragged down a hall, pants are pulled down, behind exposed and a needle is stuck in the Patient's behind even though The Patient was not being violent? What if the Patient is threatened by hospital staff saying they are going to force the Patient to come out of the restroom in front of Police Officers and Security Guards while naked? What if the Patient is not only cyberstalked, but false rumors are spread throughout the community, so much so that the Patient cannot feel safe, Your Honor? What if that Patient is let out of the hospital weighing 90lbs fully clothed at 5'4" with an elevated blood pressure, who felt as if she was going to die before reaching the house? What if they said they didn't find anything, but kept the Patient for extra weeks against her will after The Patient shared the fact that her 1996 HIPAA rules were violated?
❤
What if the Juror is a Lawyer or an Attorney, Your Honor?
This helps a lot! Thank you.
Your Honor, the Patient is not, nor has ever been a Lesbian, so she told me female Patient no. She is not LGBTQIA.
4:30