149:: Although the original proposal included thirteen rules providing for various privileges, Congress struck all of them. To guide privileges in the federal courts, Congress adopted Rule 501. The rule specified that except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress or by other federal rules, privileges in the federal courts would be "governed by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of reason and experience". Rule 501 meant that the entire purpose of the FRE (to provide clarity and supersede prior case law) was defeated in the specific context of the law of privileges. Thus, to this day, attorneys practicing in U.S. federal courts must carefully research current case law to determine the contours of available privileges in the particular circuit and district in which their case is being heard. In contrast, the California Evidence Code, from which the original proposal had been drawn, had expressly codified all evidentiary privileges and then displaced the common law, so that any further privileges in the
506:
relevant to delve into specifics about any alleged alibi such as who was there, what type of meeting it was etc. to ensure the defendant is being truthful. However the relevance of what type of meeting the defendant was attending to weighing the credibility of the story in this example is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice as the majority of
Americans would view the defendant's participation in the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan to be immoral and is therefore inadmissible.
209:, unfair surprise, efficiency, reliability, and overall fairness of the adversary process. The Rules grant trial judges broad discretion to admit evidence in the face of competing arguments from the parties. This ensures that the jury has a broad spectrum of evidence before it, but not so much evidence that is repetitive, inflammatory, or confusing. The Rules define relevance broadly and relax the common-law prohibitions on witnesses' competence to testify.
545:
transmitted to
Congress codified nine evidentiary privileges – required reports, attorney-client, psychotherapist-patient, husband-wife, communications to clergymen, political vote, trade secrets, official secrets, and identity of informer. When debate over the privileges included in the proposed Rules threatened to delay adoption of the Rules in their entirety, Congress replaced the proposed codified privileges with what became Rule 501.
550:
of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of reason and experience. However, in civil actions and proceedings, with respect to an element of a claim or defense as to which State law supplies the rule of decision, the privilege of a witness, person, government, State, or political subdivision thereof shall be determined in accordance with State law.
615:). According to a statement by the advisory committee that had drafted the restyled rules, the restyling was not to make substantive changes to the evidentiary rules but was instead purely stylistic. On April 26, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court approved the restyled amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence. Under the
627:
On
December 1, 2019, there was an amendment to Rule 807 Residual Exception, which provides the court more discretion to admit statements under Rule 807. The amendment was proposed and accepted on April 25, 2019. Previously the "equivalence" standard was difficult for the court system to apply, so it
549:
Except as otherwise required by the
Constitution of the United States or provided by Act of Congress or in rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority, the privilege of a witness, person, government, State, or political subdivision thereof shall be governed by the principles
636:
On
December 1, 2020, there was an amendment to Rule 404(b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts, to provide additional notice requirements in the prosecution of a criminal case. The amendment was proposed and accepted on April 27, 2019. It also makes note that the writing requirement for notice can be satisfied
540:
Other common-law concepts with previously amorphous limits have been more clearly delineated. This is especially true regarding hearsay evidence. Among scholars and in historical judicial decisions, four related definitions of "hearsay" emerged, and the various exceptions and exemptions flowed from
537:
impaired was a crime. Evidence of his prior arrest, conviction, or other circumstances surrounding his prior instance of impaired driving then becomes admissible to rebut the claim of "mistake." The testimony is now being offered not for conformity but to demonstrate knowledge or lack of mistake.
201:
In general, the purpose of rules of evidence is to regulate the evidence that the jury may use to reach a verdict. Historically, the rules of evidence reflected a marked distrust of jurors. The
Federal Rules of Evidence strive to eliminate this distrust, and encourage admitting evidence in close
536:
case, the prosecutor may not admit evidence of a prior instance of driving impaired to show that the defendant acted in conformity and drove impaired on the day he is charged with doing so. However such evidence may be admissible if the defense has argued the defendant had no knowledge driving
505:
during the time the crime was committed. The defendant has numerous witnesses who can place him at this meeting. The relevant part of this testimony is that the defendant was at a place other than the scene of the crime at the time the crime was committed. On cross examination it is generally
544:
On the other hand, the law of privileges remains a creature of federal common law under the Rules, rather than the subject of judicial interpretation of the text of the rule. Just as the
Uniform Rules of Evidence had, the advisory committee draft of the rules that the Supreme Court formally
137:: Congress amended the proposed rule so that the "rule now requires that the prior inconsistent statement be given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition. The rule as adopted covers statements before a grand jury."
500:
One of the most common competing interests is the danger of prejudice. An example of otherwise relevant testimony being barred for the danger of unfair prejudice is as follows: A person is on trial for committing a crime. The defendant's alibi is that he was at a meeting of the
48:
The law of evidence governs the proof of facts and the inferences flowing from such facts during the trial of civil and criminal lawsuits. Before the twentieth century, evidence law was largely the product of decisional law. During the twentieth century, projects such as the
531:
Essentially testimony about an act a person has committed in the past is not admissible for the purposes of showing it is more likely that they committed the same act, however it could be admissible for another purpose, such as knowledge or lack of mistake. For example, in a
495:
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
184:
Even though the
Federal Rules of Evidence are statutory, the Supreme Court is empowered to amend the Rules, subject to congressional disapproval. However, amendments creating, abolishing, or modifying privileges require affirmative approval by Congress under
490:
The Rules embody some very common concepts, and lawyers frequently refer to those concepts by the rule number. The most important concept – the balancing of relevance against other competing interests – is embodied in Rule 403.
217:
written documents. At the same time, the judge retains power to exclude evidence that has too great a danger for unfair prejudice to a party due to its inflammatory, repetitive, or confusing nature or its propensity to waste the court's time.
119:
The law was enacted only after
Congress made a series of modifications to the proposed rules. Much of the debate on the Rules stemmed from concerns that came to lawmakers' attention due to the Watergate scandal, particularly questions of
541:
the particular definition preferred by the scholar or court. The
Federal Rules of Evidence settled on one of these four definitions and then fixed the various exceptions and exemptions in relation to the preferred definition of hearsay.
513:, specifically 404(b) as it pertains to specific instances of a person's conduct. While 404 generally prohibits use of prior acts and crimes to show that a defendant acted in accordance with those prior acts or crimes, 404(b) provides:
1363:(Judge Robert L. Hinkle, who served as Chair of the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules during the restyling amendment process, provides insights and background on the multi-year effort which culminated in the recent amendments)
1048:"Letter : I have the honor to submit to the Congress the amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence that have been adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States pursuant to Section 2072 of Title 28, United States Code"
599:
When it comes to the FRE 106, under Adams, if a party seeks to enter into evidence additional parts of the writing or recording, the additional parts need not be "admissible" (i.e. comport with the other rules of evidence).
1360:
1203:
1164:
202:
cases. Even so, there are some rules that perpetuate the historical mistrust of jurors, expressly limiting the kind of evidence they may receive or the purpose for which they may consider it.
40:
have either adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence, with or without local variations, or have revised their own evidence rules or codes to at least partially follow the federal rules.
526:. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.
813:
696:
562:
is ultimately responsible for determining which privileges exist. In the years since the adoption of the Rules, the Court has both expressly adopted a privilege, in
1366:
79:
then exercised its power under the Rules Enabling Act to suspend implementation of the FRE until it could study them further. After a long delay blamed on the
586:
569:
37:
1264:
1047:
1390:
509:
While the rules proscribe certain testimony from being admissible for one purpose, but it may be admissible for another. An example of this is
838:
611:
Since the early 2000s, an effort had been underway to restyle the Federal Rules of Evidence as well as other federal court rules (e.g. the
173:. Congress reformed most of Rule 609(a), to specify when a court could exercise discretion to admit evidence of a conviction which was a
1011:
61:
appointed an advisory committee of fifteen to draft the new rules. The committee was composed of U.S. lawyers and U.S. legal scholars.
753:
985:
959:
554:
The scope of the privileges under the Rules thus is the subject of federal common law, except in those situations where state law
1343:
33:
740:
1083:
707:
783:
1405:
1299:
1395:
581:
559:
186:
181:
The Advisory Committee Notes still function as an important source of material used by courts to interpret the Rules.
1309:
1253:
1234:
943:
909:
177:, but that the court must admit the prior conviction if the crime was one involving "dishonesty or false statement".
612:
1113:
868:
1355:
666:
109:
1361:
Questions and Answers on the Recently Restyled Federal Rules of Evidence, 9 Fed. Evid. Rev. 225-29 (March 2012)
415:
Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay–Regardless of Whether the Declarant is Available as a Witness
1385:
1279:
154:
1058:
533:
72:
96:
64:
The Federal Rules of Evidence began as rules proposed pursuant to a statutory grant of authority, the
1182:
1143:
646:
846:
150:
124:. Some of the most prominent congressional amendments when Congress adopted the rules included:
418:
Rule 804. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay–when the Declarant is Unavailable as a Witness
278:
Rule 403. Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons
76:
933:
899:
245:
Rule 105. Limiting Evidence that is Not Admissible Against other Parties or for Other Purposes
1022:
590:
573:
1400:
628:
was eliminated and replaced with considering corroborating evidence in a uniform approach.
214:
121:
8:
1265:"Federal Rules of Evidence Advisory Committee: A Short History of Too Little Consequence"
170:
133:
761:
989:
963:
616:
593:
510:
165:
65:
145:
1305:
1249:
1230:
939:
905:
736:
576:
564:
80:
314:
Rule 415. Similar Acts in Civil Cases Involving Sexual Assault or Child Molestation
105:
784:"House Report No. 93-650 (House Committee on the Judiciary – 1974)"
190:
206:
50:
1091:
1352:, including the Advisory Committee notes (Cornell University) (Current version)
791:
381:
169:: The rule specified when a party could use evidence of a prior conviction to
29:
839:"House Report No. 93-1597 (Conference Committee Report – 1975)"
608:
On December 1, 2011, the restyled Federal Rules of Evidence became effective.
1379:
1315:
555:
305:
Rule 412. Sex–Offense Cases: The Victim's Sexual Behavior or Predisposition.
502:
325:
Rule 502. Attorney–Client Privilege and Work Product; Limitations on Waiver
1349:
409:
Rule 801. Definitions that Apply to this Article; Exclusions from Hearsay
205:
At the same time, the Rules center on a few basic ideas –
88:
84:
58:
113:
93:
An Act to Establish Rules of Evidence for Certain Courts and Proceedings
1121:
876:
363:
Rule 611. Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence
54:
53:
and the Uniform Rules of Evidence encouraged the codification of those
25:
674:
1243:
398:
Rule 705. Disclosing the Facts or Data Underlying an Expert's Opinion
226:
There are 68 individually numbered rules, divided among 11 articles:
1356:
Federal Rules of Evidence Legislative History Overview Resource Page
986:"Federal Rules of Evidence -- 2010 | Federal Evidence Review"
960:"Federal Rules of Evidence -- 2010 | Federal Evidence Review"
354:
Rule 608. A Witness's Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness
1337:
248:
Rule 106. Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded Statements
210:
1301:
Evidence Illustrated: Cases to Illustrate How All the Rules Work
174:
938:(4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 382.
424:
Rule 806. Attacking and Supporting the Declarant's Credibility
579: (1996), and expressly declined to adopt a privilege, in
467:
Rule 1007. Testimony or Statement of a Party to Prove Content
1204:"Rule 404. Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs or Acts"
357:
Rule 609. Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction
281:
Rule 404. Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs or Acts
213:
standards are similarly relaxed, as are the standards for
1262:
299:
Rule 410. Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements
75:
circulated drafts of the FRE in 1969, 1971 and 1972, but
1244:
Rothstein, Paul; Raeder, Myrna S.; Crump, David (2003).
754:"House Report No. 93-1597 (Conference Committee Report)"
1338:
Online searchable text of the Federal Rules of Evidence
458:
Rule 1004. Admissibility of Other Evidence of Content
1114:"Amendment To Restyle The Federal Rules Of Evidence"
461:
Rule 1005. Copies of Public Records to Prove Content
366:
Rule 612. Writing Used to Refresh a Witness's Memory
296:
Rule 409. Offers to Pay Medical and Similar Expenses
275:
Rule 402. General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence
1225:Ltd, Michigan Legal Publishing (October 23, 2016).
339:
Rule 603. Oath or Affirmation to Testify Truthfully
311:
Rule 414. Similar Crimes in Child–Molestation Cases
1183:"Promosed Amendments to Federal Rules of Evidence"
449:Rule 1001. Definitions that Apply to this Article.
446:Contents of Writings, Recordings, and Photographs
97:
904:. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 267.
392:Rule 703. Basses of an Expert's Opinion Testimony
1377:
925:
667:"FRE Legislative History Overview Resource Page"
435:Rule 901. Authenticating or Identifying Evidence
372:Rule 614. Court's Calling or Examining a Witness
308:Rule 413. Similar Crimes in Sexual–Assault Cases
68:, but were eventually enacted as statutory law.
891:
264:Rule 301. Presumptions in Civil Cases Generally
256:Rule 201. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts
1350:Complete text of the Federal Rules of Evidence
731:Christopher B. Mueller, Laird C. Kirkpatrick.
438:Rule 902. Evidence that is Self–Authenticating
261:Presumptions in Civil Actions and Proceedings
1344:Online access to the Advisory Committee Notes
1263:Rice, Paul R.; Delker, Neals-Erik W. (2000).
386:Rule 701. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses
293:Rule 408. Compromise Offers and Negotiations
1084:"Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2071–77"
697:"Act of Jan. 2, 1975, Pub. Law No. 93–595"
470:Rule 1008. Functions of the Court and Jury
401:Rule 706. Court–Appointed Expert Witnesses
348:Rule 606. Juror's Competency as a Witness.
333:Rule 601. Competency to Testify in General
649:. Rules 106, 615, and 702 were affected.
524:Permitted uses; notice in a criminal case
441:Rule 903. Subscribing Witness's Testimony
345:Rule 605. Judge's Competency as a Witness
931:
897:
735:(4th ed., 2009). Aspen Treatise Series.
1227:Federal Rules of Evidence; 2017 Edition
1144:"Supreme Court Order Rules of Evidence"
619:, the restyled amendments took effect.
389:Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses
360:Rule 610. Religious Beliefs or Opinions
57:evidence rules. In 1965, Chief Justice
1391:Federal judiciary of the United States
1378:
455:Rule 1003. Admissibility of Duplicates
452:Rule 1002. Requirement of the Original
395:Rule 704. Opinion on an Ultimate Issue
290:Rule 407. Subsequent Remedial Measures
284:Rule 405. Methods of Proving Character
1297:
519:404(b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts.
478:Rule 1101. Applicability of the Rules
464:Rule 1006. Summaries to Prove Content
336:Rule 602. Need for Personal Knowledge
647:a further amendment went into effect
272:Rule 401. Test for Relevant Evidence
1224:
369:Rule 613. Witness's Prior Statement
351:Rule 607. Who May Impeach a Witness
13:
1218:
582:University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC
432:Authentication and Identification
412:Rule 802. The Rule Against Hearsay
102:Tooltip Public Law (United States)
14:
1417:
1331:
640:
631:
622:
287:Rule 406. Habit; Routine Practice
1012:"Federal Rules of Evidence 2015"
901:American Law in the 20th Century
613:Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
558:to be applied. Accordingly, the
421:Rule 805. Hearsay Within Hearsay
1196:
1175:
1157:
1136:
1106:
1076:
1040:
1004:
978:
952:
242:Rule 104. Preliminary Questions
1304:. Holmes Beach, Fla.: LP Law.
1248:(4th ed.). Thomson/West.
1165:"Rule 807. Residual Exception"
932:Friedman, Lawrence M. (2019).
898:Friedman, Lawrence M. (2002).
861:
831:
806:
776:
746:
725:
689:
659:
322:Rule 501. Privilege in General
1:
652:
427:Rule 807. Residual Exceptions
375:Rule 615. Excluding Witnesses
302:Rule 411. Liability Insurance
239:Rule 103. Rulings on Evidence
603:
233:Rule 101. Scope; Definitions
221:
155:California State Legislature
153:would have to come from the
129:Prior Inconsistent Statement
34:United States federal courts
7:
1298:Scott, John Norman (2000).
503:Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
73:United States Supreme Court
38:states in the United States
21:First adopted in 1975, the
10:
1422:
1406:United States evidence law
1367:Restyled Rules of Evidence
869:"Advisory Committee Notes"
818:Leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
196:
43:
1396:United States federal law
1340:– www.rulesofevidence.org
935:A History of American Law
637:by an electronic notice.
269:Relevancy and Its Limits
161:Impeachment by Conviction
87:on January 2, 1975, when
23:Federal Rules of Evidence
51:California Evidence Code
1272:Federal Rules Decisions
671:Federal Evidence Review
1246:Evidence in a Nutshell
552:
498:
1346:– Federalevidence.com
1278:: 678. Archived from
849:on September 26, 2008
645:On December 1, 2023,
547:
493:
481:Rule 1102. Amendments
342:Rule 604. Interpreter
1386:1975 in American law
1028:on December 31, 2010
879:on February 13, 2012
814:"Codes Display Text"
794:on February 13, 2012
764:on February 13, 2012
475:Miscellaneous Rules
151:courts of that state
36:. In addition, many
1318:on October 22, 2007
1118:Federalevidence.com
1088:Federalevidence.com
1055:Federalevidence.com
1019:Federalevidence.com
873:Federalevidence.com
843:Federalevidence.com
788:Federalevidence.com
758:Federalevidence.com
704:Federalevidence.com
230:General Provisions
1094:on October 4, 2011
1064:on October 4, 2011
992:on August 19, 2010
966:on August 19, 2010
677:on October 3, 2014
617:Rules Enabling Act
66:Rules Enabling Act
1285:on March 24, 2009
1192:. April 27, 2020.
1153:. April 25, 2019.
741:978-0-7355-7967-5
565:Jaffee v. Redmond
556:supplies the rule
236:Rule 102. Purpose
171:impeach a witness
134:Rule 801(d)(1)(A)
83:, the FRE became
81:Watergate scandal
16:United States law
1413:
1370:The Third Branch
1327:
1325:
1323:
1314:. Archived from
1294:
1292:
1290:
1284:
1269:
1259:
1240:
1212:
1211:
1200:
1194:
1193:
1190:supremecourt.gov
1187:
1179:
1173:
1172:
1161:
1155:
1154:
1151:supremecourt.gov
1148:
1140:
1134:
1133:
1131:
1129:
1124:on July 18, 2011
1120:. Archived from
1110:
1104:
1103:
1101:
1099:
1090:. Archived from
1080:
1074:
1073:
1071:
1069:
1063:
1057:. Archived from
1052:
1044:
1038:
1037:
1035:
1033:
1027:
1021:. Archived from
1016:
1008:
1002:
1001:
999:
997:
988:. Archived from
982:
976:
975:
973:
971:
962:. Archived from
956:
950:
949:
929:
923:
922:
920:
918:
895:
889:
888:
886:
884:
875:. Archived from
865:
859:
858:
856:
854:
845:. Archived from
835:
829:
828:
826:
824:
810:
804:
803:
801:
799:
790:. Archived from
780:
774:
773:
771:
769:
760:. Archived from
750:
744:
729:
723:
722:
720:
718:
712:
706:. Archived from
701:
693:
687:
686:
684:
682:
673:. Archived from
663:
484:Rule 1103. Title
382:Expert Testimony
253:Judicial Notice
103:
99:
32:that applies in
1421:
1420:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1376:
1375:
1372:September 2011.
1334:
1321:
1319:
1312:
1288:
1286:
1282:
1267:
1256:
1237:
1221:
1219:Further reading
1216:
1215:
1202:
1201:
1197:
1185:
1181:
1180:
1176:
1163:
1162:
1158:
1146:
1142:
1141:
1137:
1127:
1125:
1112:
1111:
1107:
1097:
1095:
1082:
1081:
1077:
1067:
1065:
1061:
1050:
1046:
1045:
1041:
1031:
1029:
1025:
1014:
1010:
1009:
1005:
995:
993:
984:
983:
979:
969:
967:
958:
957:
953:
946:
930:
926:
916:
914:
912:
896:
892:
882:
880:
867:
866:
862:
852:
850:
837:
836:
832:
822:
820:
812:
811:
807:
797:
795:
782:
781:
777:
767:
765:
752:
751:
747:
730:
726:
716:
714:
713:on June 1, 2011
710:
699:
695:
694:
690:
680:
678:
665:
664:
660:
655:
643:
634:
625:
606:
529:
521:
224:
199:
101:
46:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1419:
1409:
1408:
1403:
1398:
1393:
1388:
1374:
1373:
1364:
1358:
1353:
1347:
1341:
1333:
1332:External links
1330:
1329:
1328:
1310:
1295:
1260:
1254:
1241:
1235:
1220:
1217:
1214:
1213:
1195:
1174:
1156:
1135:
1105:
1075:
1039:
1003:
977:
951:
944:
924:
910:
890:
860:
830:
805:
775:
745:
724:
688:
657:
656:
654:
651:
642:
641:2023 Amendment
639:
633:
632:2020 Amendment
630:
624:
623:2019 Amendment
621:
605:
602:
528:
527:
515:
488:
487:
486:
485:
482:
479:
473:
472:
471:
468:
465:
462:
459:
456:
453:
450:
444:
443:
442:
439:
436:
430:
429:
428:
425:
422:
419:
416:
413:
410:
404:
403:
402:
399:
396:
393:
390:
387:
378:
377:
376:
373:
370:
367:
364:
361:
358:
355:
352:
349:
346:
343:
340:
337:
334:
328:
327:
326:
323:
317:
316:
315:
312:
309:
306:
303:
300:
297:
294:
291:
288:
285:
282:
279:
276:
273:
267:
266:
265:
259:
258:
257:
251:
250:
249:
246:
243:
240:
237:
234:
223:
220:
215:authenticating
198:
195:
187:28 U.S.C.
179:
178:
158:
138:
89:President Ford
45:
42:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1418:
1407:
1404:
1402:
1399:
1397:
1394:
1392:
1389:
1387:
1384:
1383:
1381:
1371:
1368:
1365:
1362:
1359:
1357:
1354:
1351:
1348:
1345:
1342:
1339:
1336:
1335:
1317:
1313:
1311:1-55691-181-5
1307:
1303:
1302:
1296:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1266:
1261:
1257:
1255:0-314-26098-6
1251:
1247:
1242:
1238:
1236:9781942842118
1232:
1228:
1223:
1222:
1209:
1205:
1199:
1191:
1184:
1178:
1170:
1166:
1160:
1152:
1145:
1139:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1109:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1079:
1060:
1056:
1049:
1043:
1024:
1020:
1013:
1007:
996:September 23,
991:
987:
981:
970:September 23,
965:
961:
955:
947:
945:9780190070885
941:
937:
936:
928:
913:
911:9780300102994
907:
903:
902:
894:
878:
874:
870:
864:
848:
844:
840:
834:
819:
815:
809:
793:
789:
785:
779:
763:
759:
755:
749:
742:
738:
734:
728:
709:
705:
698:
692:
681:September 19,
676:
672:
668:
662:
658:
650:
648:
638:
629:
620:
618:
614:
609:
601:
597:
596: (1990).
595:
592:
588:
584:
583:
578:
575:
571:
567:
566:
561:
560:Supreme Court
557:
551:
546:
542:
538:
535:
525:
520:
517:
516:
514:
512:
507:
504:
497:
492:
483:
480:
477:
476:
474:
469:
466:
463:
460:
457:
454:
451:
448:
447:
445:
440:
437:
434:
433:
431:
426:
423:
420:
417:
414:
411:
408:
407:
405:
400:
397:
394:
391:
388:
385:
384:
383:
380:Opinions and
379:
374:
371:
368:
365:
362:
359:
356:
353:
350:
347:
344:
341:
338:
335:
332:
331:
329:
324:
321:
320:
318:
313:
310:
307:
304:
301:
298:
295:
292:
289:
286:
283:
280:
277:
274:
271:
270:
268:
263:
262:
260:
255:
254:
252:
247:
244:
241:
238:
235:
232:
231:
229:
228:
227:
219:
216:
212:
208:
203:
194:
192:
188:
182:
176:
172:
168:
167:
162:
159:
156:
152:
148:
147:
142:
139:
136:
135:
130:
127:
126:
125:
123:
117:
115:
111:
107:
100:
94:
90:
86:
82:
78:
74:
69:
67:
62:
60:
56:
52:
41:
39:
35:
31:
27:
24:
19:
1369:
1322:December 10,
1320:. Retrieved
1316:the original
1300:
1287:. Retrieved
1280:the original
1275:
1271:
1245:
1226:
1207:
1198:
1189:
1177:
1168:
1159:
1150:
1138:
1128:December 17,
1126:. Retrieved
1122:the original
1117:
1108:
1098:December 17,
1096:. Retrieved
1092:the original
1087:
1078:
1068:December 17,
1066:. Retrieved
1059:the original
1054:
1042:
1032:December 17,
1030:. Retrieved
1023:the original
1018:
1006:
994:. Retrieved
990:the original
980:
968:. Retrieved
964:the original
954:
934:
927:
915:. Retrieved
900:
893:
883:December 17,
881:. Retrieved
877:the original
872:
863:
853:December 17,
851:. Retrieved
847:the original
842:
833:
823:December 17,
821:. Retrieved
817:
808:
798:December 17,
796:. Retrieved
792:the original
787:
778:
768:December 17,
766:. Retrieved
762:the original
757:
748:
732:
727:
717:December 17,
715:. Retrieved
708:the original
703:
691:
679:. Retrieved
675:the original
670:
661:
644:
635:
626:
610:
607:
598:
580:
563:
553:
548:
543:
539:
530:
523:
518:
508:
499:
494:
489:
225:
204:
200:
183:
180:
164:
160:
144:
140:
132:
128:
118:
92:
70:
63:
47:
30:evidence law
22:
20:
18:
1401:Legal codes
319:Privileges
191:§ 2074
166:Rule 609(a)
85:federal law
59:Earl Warren
1380:Categories
653:References
330:Witnesses
141:Privileges
108:, 88
55:common law
604:Restyling
496:evidence.
222:Structure
207:relevance
122:privilege
733:Evidence
511:Rule 404
406:Hearsay
146:Rule 501
77:Congress
1289:May 27,
1208:Westlaw
1169:Westlaw
917:May 31,
211:Hearsay
197:Purpose
98:Pub. L.
91:signed
44:History
1308:
1252:
1233:
942:
908:
739:
189:
175:felony
112:
106:93–595
104:
26:codify
1283:(PDF)
1268:(PDF)
1186:(PDF)
1147:(PDF)
1062:(PDF)
1051:(PDF)
1026:(PDF)
1015:(PDF)
711:(PDF)
700:(PDF)
589:
572:
110:Stat.
1324:2008
1306:ISBN
1291:2007
1250:ISBN
1231:ISBN
1130:2018
1100:2018
1070:2018
1034:2018
998:2008
972:2008
940:ISBN
919:2020
906:ISBN
885:2018
855:2018
825:2018
800:2018
770:2018
737:ISBN
719:2018
683:2014
591:U.S.
574:U.S.
522:(2)
114:1926
71:The
28:the
1276:191
594:182
587:493
570:518
534:DUI
1382::
1274:.
1270:.
1229:.
1206:.
1188:.
1167:.
1149:.
1116:.
1086:.
1053:.
1017:.
871:.
841:.
816:.
786:.
756:.
702:.
669:.
585:,
568:,
193:.
163:–
143:–
131:–
116:.
95:,
1326:.
1293:.
1258:.
1239:.
1210:.
1171:.
1132:.
1102:.
1072:.
1036:.
1000:.
974:.
948:.
921:.
887:.
857:.
827:.
802:.
772:.
743:.
721:.
685:.
577:1
157:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.