Federal Rules of Evidence

This question concerns whether a coquette would be more likely to ex do work fictional acknowledgment tell presented by the defense which consisted of recommendation by a declare as to the defendant's reputation in the community or that consisting of testimony by a witness describing specific acts of kindness by the defendant. The answer is that a court is more likely to admit exhibit about reputation than about specific acts.

The national Rules of Evidence state that a defendant's character piece of tail be proved either by evidence of reputation or by evidence of specific instances of give. However, evidence of specific instances of conduct is permissible and in cases where the defendant's character is in appear "in the strict sense." Fed. R. Evid. 405 Advisory Committee Note. This means that evidence of instances of conduct can only be used when character is "a material fact that under the substantive uprightness determines rights and liabilities of the parties." The evidence is not offered to prove that the defendant did or did not act in conformity with a character trait. Rather, the reality or n onenessxistence of the character trait determines whether the defendant act the offense. McCormick on Evidence ? 187, at 551 (3d ed. 1984).

Because the kindliness of the defendant would not determine whether or not the defendant actually perpetrate the assault charged in this case, the specific instances of kindliness could not

In this sense, morose indirectly attacks the healing(p) theories aimed at addressing the effects of segregation. By suggesting that segregated education can serve the interests of black children, proponents of these remedies support the original notions which underlay segregation. Black asserts that separate can never be equal, particularly when one part of society uses this principle to perpetuate the inferiority of the opposite part.

The broad principle concerning the admissibility of evidence is that evidence must be relevant to be admissible. Fed. R. Evid. ?? 401 and 402; Huddleston v. United States, 108 S. Ct. 1496, 1500 (1988).

In Huddleston, the Supreme flirt specifically rejected the argument that evidence of a antecedent act can only be admitted if the fact that the defendant committed the act is proven by a preponderance of the evidence. 108 S. Ct. at 1500. The Court said that the Rules of Evidence are not structured in this manner and that evidence may only be excluded on the basis of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. 108 S. Ct. at 1500, citing Fed. R. Evid ? 404(b), Advisory Committee Notes.

The question concerns the issue of the defendant victorious the witness stand during trial. If the defendant takes that stand, will the government sire a better chance of admitting evidence of the defendants previous conditions? Or would it stimulate no effect? The answer is that it will have no effect, unless the defendant brings up the issue of his own character while on the stand.

This question concerns evidence that the defendant committed an act during the offense as part of a attire of committing such acts. Specifically, in order for the evidence of the past act of habit to be admissible, must the court find inference beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed this past act? The answer is no. The court deprivation only determine that a jury could reasonably come together that the defendant committed the past act.

Milliken v, Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 9
Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!