Also known as: federal rules of evidence · FRE · Federal Rules of Evidence
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A comprehensive set of procedural rules that govern the admissibility of evidence in federal civil and criminal proceedings. The rules determine whether particular items of proof may be presented to the factfinder and under what conditions.
Fiona Foster testified at trial that she had never discussed the contract terms with the defendant. Frontier Capital offered the transcript of her earlier deposition in which she admitted having those discussions. The court permitted the deposition excerpt to be read to the jury to contradict her testimony.
Farah Fox was charged with fraud. The government offered evidence that she had previously submitted false invoices to another client. The court admitted the evidence after finding sufficient proof from which the jury could conclude she committed the prior act and that its probative value on intent was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
Fatou Fall sued Fidelity Trust after a disputed transaction. At trial she offered the deposition of a former trust officer who had left the country. The court allowed the deposition because the officer's testimony would have been admissible if he had appeared live and the procedural prerequisites were satisfied.
Freya Freeman testified for the plaintiff. On cross-examination the defendant asked whether she belonged to an organization whose rules encouraged members to protect one another by any means. The court permitted the questions because evidence of bias is always relevant to credibility.
Faye Fuller, a key eyewitness, had moved overseas and could not travel. The court allowed her to testify by live video link after finding good cause and appropriate safeguards, satisfying the requirement that testimony ordinarily be taken in open court.
Fatima Flores entered plea negotiations and later proceeded to trial. She had agreed that statements made during those negotiations could be used to impeach her if she testified inconsistently. The court enforced the agreement and permitted limited use of the statements for impeachment.
On August 1, 1991, San Diego Narcotics Task Force agents arrested Gordon Shuster after discovering a methamphetamine laboratory at his residence in Rainbow, California. Shuster agreed to cooperate with the agents. He placed a call to respondent Gordon Mezzanatto's pager a few hours later. When Mezzanatto returned the call, Shuster told him that a friend wanted to purchase a pound of methamphetamine for $13,000. Shuster arranged to meet Mezzanatto later that day. At the meeting, Shuster introduced an undercover officer as his friend. Mezzanatto produced a brown paper package containing approximately one pound of methamphetamine from his car. He also presented a glass pipe containing methamphetamine residue and asked the officer if he wanted to take a hit. The officer gave a prearranged arrest signal after leaving the car to retrieve the money. Mezzanatto was arrested and charged with possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On October 17, 1991, Mezzanatto and his attorney asked to meet with the prosecutor to discuss cooperating with the Government. At the beginning of the meeting, the prosecutor stated that Mezzanatto would have to agree that any statements made could be used to impeach contradictory testimony at trial if the case proceeded that far. Mezzanatto conferred with counsel and agreed to proceed under those terms. He then admitted knowing the package contained methamphetamine while claiming he had dealt only in ounce quantities and had not visited Shuster's residence for at least a week. The Government confronted Mezzanatto with surveillance evidence showing his car on Shuster's property the day before the arrest. It terminated the meeting for failure to provide completely truthful information. Mezzanatto was later tried on the charge. He took the stand in his own defense. He testified that he thought Shuster used the laboratory to manufacture plastic explosives for the CIA and that he did not know the package contained methamphetamine. Over defense objection, the prosecutor cross-examined Mezzanatto about inconsistent statements from the October 17 meeting. The prosecutor called an attending agent to recount those statements. The jury found Mezzanatto guilty. The District Court sentenced him to 170 months in prison. A Ninth Circuit panel reversed over Chief Judge Wallace's dissent in 998 F. 2d 1452 (1993). The Supreme Court granted certiorari because the decision conflicted with the Seventh Circuit's ruling in United States v. Dortch, 5 F. 3d 1056 (1993).
View caseA deposition may be used to contradict or impeach the deponent's testimony or for any other purpose permitted by the Federal Rules of Evidence, provided the deponent was present or represented at the deposition.
The evidence is admissible if there is sufficient proof from which the jury could find the defendant committed the prior act and if the probative value on a non-propensity issue is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under Rule 403.
Yes. Evidence showing bias, including membership in an organization whose tenets encourage false testimony on behalf of fellow members, is always relevant and admissible.
…misleading because of the difficulty in evaluating it.' " Id. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2798 (quoting Weinstein, Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence Is Sound; It Should Not Be Amended, 138 F.R.D. 631, 632 (1991)). Federal judges must therefore exclude proffered scientific evidence under Rules 702 and 403 unless they are convinced that…