The Federal Rules of Evidence - Part 1
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 08. 2024
- 1993 Federal Judicial Center gov.ntis.ava19481vnb2.1 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 is so much more helpful than my Evidence text. Thanks for sharing.
Thank you your Honor for sharing your clear perispicacity of these rules.
This is a good introductory video series. The Federal Rules of Evidence have changed since this time, but the main principles are still the same.
I’m currently down a rabbit hole writing a graduate paper for forensic psychology regarding Daubert. This is helpful and fascinating. Thanks.
our legal system and common law are some of the best in the world, not worst. The ills you speak of are from laws like the war on drugs, which the judiciary can't change. I would say that our politicians and our police officers are flawed far more than our legal system. But, we should still always try to improve
Extremely good for foreign attorneys like me who,wish to,take,the bar in the USA.
+Shankar Iyer you cant you are not legal approved
@visionary800 that's not the justice systems fault, that's the legislative and executive branches all the way. No one goes to court until they have been arrested and they won't be put into jail unless there's a specific law they have broken.
You can also blame the supreme court, a little bit. They have continually made decisions that take more rights away, however, remember that the supreme court is staffed by presidential appointment and senate approval.
Insightful to law students reading FREs' in addition to RE of a particular state they will practice in, especially 'would be' trial lawyers.
@visionary800 Compare your statement with the case presented in the Aimed At America 4 video. This country has a history of only enforcing the laws against those it does not like, while ignoring the laws in their favor.
Selective enforcement of law!
Your Honor,
What if someone implied that my paying off all of my bills, would set my family free from the bonds of Slavery, (because I am "African American), and I paid off the bills (even though as an American who has never left America), I want to know what that entails in accord with the 13th Amendment of the US Constitution?
nice to meet u,
Your Honor, if it please the court, is it true that the spouse cannot testify against his or her spouse (unless divorce is involved, correct?
Your Honor, if the wedding was not consimated on the date of the marriage, is the couple recognized as husband and wife?
I need some help understanding how I can exclude a conviction that happened after I was terminated from work, the employer was aware of the pending charge and i was terminated prior to being convicted any links or any advice much appreciated
Your question is ambiguous. Pls restate it.
The legal system lacks true objectivity and is based mostly on discretionary decisions of Federal Judges appointed by politicians to advance politics. The legal system needs to strive to eliminate judicial discretion where politics and prejudice can manifest while being concealed for untrue statements that it is for some public good.
Impossible if humans are involved.
Intolerable without humans involved.
@@rikkilleen3169 Here we are, thousands of years have passed, and still we are trying to get along without clubbing each other to death (literally or figuratively in the court room). My only solution is that maybe we should just try to be more KIND to each other then maybe we won't have to play these word games in the legal profession. I got a JD thinking I could help people but what I learned is that bringing a lawyer into an issue (in most cases) is like bringing gasoline to a fire.
@@ReynosoJD I'm down with being kind, but some people just don't want to. They want to take whatever they can get or hurt whoever they want to hurt. No amount of appeal to something better will ever change them. I know it's a hard thing to grasp, but I've seen it first hand. I'm a soldier and I've been a medic. I've confronted wife beaters. I've volunteered for foreign missions to build schools. I've worked beside some of the most selfless people one could ever hope to know. I've also seen the law violated in the name of enforcing the law. People will be who they want to be.
Is it me or he really misinterpreted rule 409?
FRE, so, I can lie to gain public assistance, and it can’t be used against me in court
I am
No sound