VIEW TREE
ICON KEY
137407:false:false:false:false:false:false:false:false:false:!:false:-1:-1
The trial court has broad discretion to bar questioning that it deems unnecessarily repetitive.
Add Comment
Contributed in 2009 by Peter Tillers
Browse from Unnecessarily repetitive questions
Law
»
Courts
»
Evidence
»
The nature of proof
»
Proof as temporal process
»
Proof at trial has a temporal dimension
»
Proof procedure at trial
»
General structure
»
Witness interrogation
»
Form of interrogation
»
Time-consuming questioning may be barred
»
Asked and answered: The trial court has broad...
You've hit the end
Contribution Suggestions
vouch for authority for rule...
Although Federal Rule of Evidence 411 bars the use of liability insurance or its absence on the issue of negligence or wrongful conduct, Rule 411...Morton v. Zidell Explorations, Inc., 695 F.2d 347, 351 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding, in plaintiff tugboat owners' action against defendant shipyard for damages arising from negligence, that evidence of plaintiffs' builder risk....
in support of
Although Federal Rule of Evidence 411 bars the use of liability insurance or its absence on the issue of negligence or wrongful conduct, Rule 411 does not bar the use evidence about liability insurance to show a party's ownership or control of an instrumentality that is the basis of the action against the party.complete authority for rule...
The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination confers on a criminal defendant the right to give relevant testimony.Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819 (1975).
in support of
The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination confers on a criminal defendant the right to give relevant testimony.complete authority for rule...
The right to due process guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibits the exclusion of probative exculpatory evidence in criminal...Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, pin? (2006).
in support of
The right to due process guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibits the exclusion of probative exculpatory evidence in criminal trials when exclusion of such evidence is unreasonable, arbitrary, or disproportionate.