VIEW TREE
ICON KEY
154360: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 Medical 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
»
"Scientific" lie detection: Cross-reference
You've hit the end
Contribution Suggestions
vouch for authority for rule...
If a statement is assertive -- that is, if the declarant's statement does assert that some matter is true -- the statement is nevertheless...United States v. May, 622 F.2d 1000, 1007 (9th Cir. 1980) (upholding trial court's admission of the Apprehension Data Cards as non-hearsay evidence because the written contents of the Apprehension Data Cards were not....
in support of
If a statement is assertive -- that is, if the declarant's statement does assert that some matter is true -- the statement is nevertheless non-hearsay if the statement is offered to prove that some matter other than the asserted matter is true.complete authority for rule...
Evidence is relevant if it increases or decreases to any degree the probability of a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.United States v. Madera, 574 F.2d 1320, 1322 (5th Cir. 1978) ("Evidence need not be conclusive of a material issue in order to be admitted. Fed.R.Evid. 401 defines relevant evidence as any evidence 'having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the...
in support of
Evidence is relevant if it increases or decreases to any degree the probability of a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.vouch for authority for rule...
If a pattern of behavior of a natural person does not rise to the status of a habit, it may constitute a character trait and such non-habitual...United States v. Quattrone, 441 F.3d 153, 191 (2d Cir. 2006) (upholding trial court's exclusion of "similar reinforcing emails" evidence because it was "insufficient to establish within the meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence 406 a habit of reflexively responding to subordinates' email suggestions.").
in support of
If a pattern of behavior of a natural person does not rise to the status of a habit, it may constitute a character trait and such non-habitual behavior may be barred by the prohibition against circumstantial character evidence.