VIEW TREE
ICON KEY
143701:false:false:false:false:false:false:false:false:false:!:false:-1:-1
This is a cross reference. Click here to make the jump.
Add Comment
Contributed in 2009 by Peter Tillers
Last edited in 2009 by Joel Friedman
Browse from Neuroscience & cognitive science
Law
»
Courts
»
Evidence
»
Admissibility of evidence
»
Expert and scientific evidence
»
Must expert evidence be generally acceptable to experts or must the trial court make an independent assessment of the validity and reliability of such evidence?
»
Trial court must act as gatekeeper and make independent assessment
»
The expert or scientific evidence must be shown to be reliable
»
Reliability or unreliability of assorted fields and methods
»
Social sciences
»
Psychology and psychiatry
»
Psychology
»
More about cognitive science: Cross-reference
You've hit the end
Contribution Suggestions
vouch for authority for rule...
Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4) or a comparable State rule creates a hearsay exception for a statement made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or...Cf. Field v. Trigg County Hospital, Inc., 386 F.3d 729, 735-736 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding, in plaintiff spouses action against defendants hospital and physician for malpractice and negligence that
the "Vanderbilt physicians' statements,....
in support of
Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4) or a comparable State rule creates a hearsay exception for a statement made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment.vouch for authority for rule...
A defendant can forfeit the right of confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to defendants in both federal and state trials. Such...United States v. Emery, 186 F.3d 921, 926 (8th Cir. 1999) (upholding trial court's admission of the victim's hearsay statements because defendant had forfeited his hearsay and confrontation objections not only with....
in support of
A defendant can forfeit the right of confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to defendants in both federal and state trials. Such forfeiture can occur if a defendant takes an action that prevents a witness from appearing and testifying at the defendant's trial.complete authority for rule...
Poverty is generally irrelevant to the question of the doing of an act (such as theft) by showing motive (such as desire for money) for the act.Cf. United States v. Mitchell, 172 F.3d 1104, 1107-1100 (9th Cir. 1999) (trial for armed bank robbery; "Mitchell (accused) argues that evidence of a defendant's poverty is not admissible to show motive, citing an evidence treatise by Wigmore and several cases from other circuits such as Davis v....
in support of
Poverty is generally irrelevant to the question of the doing of an act (such as theft) by showing motive (such as desire for money) for the act.