VIEW TREE
ICON KEY
143732: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 Phrenology
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
»
Junk science
»
Dowsing: Cross-reference
You've hit the end
Contribution Suggestions
vouch for authority for rule...
Federal Rule of Evidence 413 and comparable rules in a few States create an express exception to the prohibition against circumstantial use of...United States v. Charley, 189 F.3d 1251, 1259-1260 (10th Cir. 1999) (upholding trial court's admission of accused's prior conviction for sex molestation where there was a similarity between accused's prior crime and the present charges).
in support of
Federal Rule of Evidence 413 and comparable rules in a few States create an express exception to the prohibition against circumstantial use of character, the prohibition against the use of character to show conduct. Rules such as Rule 413 provide that in a criminal trial for sexual assault evidence of the defendant's commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault is admissible.complete authority for rule...
The constitutional requirement that proof of criminal guilt be shown beyond a reasonable doubt is not a requirement that proof of guilt be...In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, pin? (1970).
in support of
The constitutional requirement that proof of criminal guilt be shown beyond a reasonable doubt is not a requirement that proof of guilt be conclusive, completely certain, or beyond any doubt.vouch for authority for rule...
The co-conspirator exemption from the hearsay rule applies only if the trial court concludes that a preponderance of of the evidence shows that the...Cf. Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, 218-219 (1974) (upholding trial court's admission of the Tomblin and Browning election contest testimony because "prior testimony was accordingly admissible simply if....
in support of
The co-conspirator exemption from the hearsay rule applies only if the trial court concludes that a preponderance of of the evidence shows that the statement of the alleged co-conspirator was made during the conspiracy rather than before or after the conspiracy.