VIEW TREE
ICON KEY
154399: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 Psychiatry
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
»
Repressed & recovered memory: Cross-reference
You've hit the end
Contribution Suggestions
complete authority for rule...
A view (by jury or, in bench trial, by trial judge) is evidence.United States v. Gray, 199 F.3d 547, 548 (1st Cir. 1999) (view is evidence).
in support of
A view (by jury or, in bench trial, by trial judge) is evidence.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. Looking Cloud, 419 F.3d 781, 787-788 (8th Cir. 2005) (upholding trial court's admission of informant rumors as non-hearsay evidence because they "[were] not offered for the truth of the matter asserted" but "were....
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...
If a witness has been impeached by evidence that expressly impliedly charges that the witness is being untruthful because some circumstances or...Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150, pin? (1995) (in this case Court specifically rejected argument that a prior inconsistent statement is admissible to rehabilitate credibility of a witness e3ven if the prior consistent statement does not rebut a charge of motive to lie or a...
in support of
If a witness has been impeached by evidence that expressly impliedly charges that the witness is being untruthful because some circumstances or events occurred that caused the witness to be biased or provided the witness with a motive to lie or fabricate, a prior consistent statement may be used in an attempt to rehabilitate the witness only if the prior consistent statement was made before the circumstances or events arose that, it is expressly or impliedly charged, caused the witness to be biased or gave the witness a motive to lie.